It is possible that both "camps" are arguing about two differnt things. Wang is talking about foreigners and subsidies, Aaron and Bart are talking about university admissions. Therefore in such a situation it is difficult to find a common ground; if both sides want to in the first place.

KTM, great piece of work you have here.

I especially like this paragraph,

"What this means is that if you have a student with 4 A's, 2 'S' Paper Distinctions, A1 in GP and a lousy grade for Project Work, he will have a lower score than a student who only took three A Level subjects and scored all A's and who got A1's in GP and Project Work."

IF qualities like compassion, charisma, leadership, engaging personality, creativity can be measured by paper excellence, soon someone will come up with a formula to measure the human soul. My opinion is paper qualifications just gives an "indication" of a person's intelligence / dilligence.

Also, let's not kid ourselves, there's a proven strategy to score at A-levels, even in General Paper. Otherwise, why do we have students buying up 10-year series like mad???

I didn't read the forum letters in detail but I just want to point out one other thing - some courses require aptitude tests before considering admissions (e.g. Law , Architecture and Medicine, to name a few I know of). Excellent paper qualifications just gives you a chance to try at the aptitude tests. That's it. I'm inclined to think these parents who are complaining, probably in their need to sensationalize their case, fail to mention that possibly their kids could only demonstrate they have good grades and nothing more.

Some have claimed that it is harder to get into a local university. That's absolutely bogus. The university enrolment per cohort has been climbing steadily from 20 percent to something like 23 percent today (with the building of SMU) and it's not stopping here. The Government has apparently promised that the number will eventually reach 25 percent per cohort.

Does this necessarily tell us about whether it is harder to get a place?

In terms of percentage per cohort (the whole group of people who were in Primary 1 the same year as you, I suppose), the figures are definitely increasing.

However, is it possible that there are more people going to JCs (after all, there are more JCs than before) but a lower percentage of each graduating JC batch getting a place? If we have figures for this, it will perhaps be clearer whether 'A' Levels graduates find it harder than before to get a place.

In a word, if 90% (random example) of 'A' Levels graduates got places in the local universities in 1997 (ignoring those who go to overseas universities), but only 85% (random example) of 'A' Levels graduates get places in the local unis in 2007, maybe admissions have become more difficult.

Ned Stark & Hermes,

Thanks for your comments.

Molly,

Does this necessarily tell us about whether it is harder to get a place?

Yes. It really shouldn't be all about the people who choose to take 'A' Levels should it? Tax payers include those whose kids go to poly as well.

In any case, you have realize that there is a trend in recent years where there are actually more of the better 'O' Level students choosing to take the poly route instead of the 'A' Level one. Even if the admission rate for the 'A' Level students is lower, is it really surprising since there are more better poly students and they should (rightfully) be taking up more places?

Whether it's getting to university through the 'A' Level route or through the poly route, it really shouldn't matter, should it? In any case, the fellas who choose to take the 'A' Levels would have qualified for the polys and could have in theory chosen that route too (though the converse is often not true).

If you are right to say that it's harder for 'A' Level students to get a place, then it must be true also that it is (relatively) easier to get to university through the poly route, so who ask them to choose 'A' Levels and not poly?

Then again, suppose there's no change in the poly part and it's "harder" because there are more 'A' Level students because there are more places. Having more places makes the extra students smarter and therefore more deserving of a place in the university?

No, I'm not saying that it's harder. I'm only wondering if there are other figures to look at before we can make that conclusion.

Of course tax payers include everyone. But not everyone who goes to a poly has the intention of going to the university whereas most people going to a JC have such an intention. I didn't mention the poly people because it was difficult to put in so many factors. It could be that, compared to the past, there are now even more people going to either JCs and polys, making the population "eligible" (but not guaranteed, of course) for a uni place greater than before. And if the increase (if any) in "eligible" population "exceeded" the increase from 20% to 23%, then the competition is stiffer and it could indeed be more difficult than before to get a place.

This, though, has little (if any) to do with how smart or deserving the students are. By "difficulty," I thought it was largely a matter of how competitive it was. When it comes to student caliber... it could be another matter altogether. Stiffer competition could have made the average caliber of students better or worse (if students have, more than ever, become mere exam-taking machines).

It could really have been easier to get a place than it was before. The increase from 20% to 23% says something. But I would be more careful about coming to a conclusion just based on this.

Personally, I think the A-levels is a horrible way of determining if a person can "make it" at university level. I had a terrible experience in JC and did badly in my A-levels. I suppose I was lucky that competition into NUS was not so stiff then. Still, I don't see much of an alternative. There is the IB, which I prefer, but I doubt the system is going to be overhauled.

I think the question is whether university places are a basic good or a privilege. If it is a basic good, then Singaporeans who meet the cut off points should have a university place waiting for them. If it is a privilege, then only the top x% will have university places. It wouldn't matter if 90 out of 100 students have perfect A-level grades, only the top x% will get in. How to differentiate, I have no idea.

I don't believe having foreigners necessarily deprives locals of places in the university. What I am curious about is this 20% figure. Is it a quota, that is we do not accept any more than this number of foreign students? Or is it a target in which we take in the top whatever-number-20%-translates-into of foreign students to fill up the spaces?

Anyway, what I think is needed is a change in mentality. We are so used to the traditional route - pri -> sec -> jc/poly -> uni -> success (?) that when we cannot complete the journey within the appropriate timespan, we get upset. But success in life doesn't become impossible because you fail at following the traditional route. Maybe you have to work a few years before embarking on a university degree. Maybe going to a polytechnic after the A-levels would be a better route for you. There are so many choices in life but I feel people are so blinded by the society-approved route that it is very frightening when they cannot continue on it. Then again, society does like to discriminate against those who don't take up the traditional route.

"People nowadays seem to like to open their gaps without getting their facts straight. Even when "not following a matter closely" also got things to say."

"First, we have to understand the market rate. Do people know how many students are getting at least 3 and 4 A's in each cohort? The KTM doesn't have the numbers exactly, but it's probably more than a thousand."

Pot calling the kettle black eh ;)

From an economics point of view, a university should match the demands of a skilled workforce with a supply a students capable of completing the course. This is a matter of allocating resources effeciently. For every student with the potential to graduate with a degree but is not given an opportunity to do so, this opportunity cost is paid.

Furthermore if the places go to foreign students at the expense of capable Singaporean citizens, the additonal costs of subsidising the foreign students' fees is paid. This is regardless if the foreign student stays to complete his or her bond. Taxpayer's money still goes towards paying for the foreigner's sch fees.

So the important question is: ARE THERE SINGAPOREANS WHO ARE CAPABLE OF COMPLETING A DEGREE DEPRIVED OF A CHANCE TO DO SO?

Besides, i find it amazing that some singaporeans go to the extent of suggesting that having more singapore degree holders would devalue his degree.

What are the honours awards for? How about the degrees held by the foreigners?

Not to say that i'm xenophobic, but some people really can't think well. No wonder kena screwed by ur masters and still none the wiser.

Just wanted to point out one point which may not been covered. When we look at the question of "Is it harder to get into university now?", there's 2 ways of looking at the problem.

The first way is by percentages of cohort, which is what KTM has done in this post. So as he has said, because the % of cohort going into university has increased compared to the past, therefore it is easier to get into uni than before.

However, there's another way of looking at it imo, and that is by the entry requirements. If for example, ABD could get one a place in the past, but now it cannot, then isn't also right to say that it actually is harder to get into university? Of course a key assumption is that the standard of the A levels is the same throughout the years.

Molly,

Actually hor, why does it really matter if it's easier or harder to get into the local universities. What really matters is whether or not we are doing well enough to ensure that no citizen who is capable of completely a decent university education is denied a place period. Simple as that.

What we need to be realistic about is:
(1) No matter how we draw the line, there will be people who *just barely* fall on the wrong side and they will not be happy.
(2) There will always be deserving people who fail to make the grade and undeserving ones who get admitted, but will eventually flunk out.

Piper,

Personally, I think the A-levels is a horrible way of determining if a person can "make it" at university level ... Still, I don't see much of an alternative.

You're probably right, but anyone got also as you say, we got any better alternatives meh? SAT doesn't quite cut it either.

I think the question is whether university places are a basic good or a privilege. If it is a basic good, then Singaporeans who meet the cut off points should have a university place waiting for them.

Personally, the KTM thinks it's a basic good, as in anyone who has the capacity to do reasonably well and by reasonably well, get at least a B/C average should have a chance at a university education. If a fella is going to be getting all D's and ta paoing every semester then there's probably a need to draw a line.

Unfortunately, the KTM disagrees with you about this cut off point business -- fundamentally because as you say, the goodness of the A-Levels as a means to measure aptitude for university is questionable (at least at the boundaries). There are already students who make the so-called cutoff's and yet eventually flunk out, so we know for a fact that we're approaching the limits of how far we can go (or perhaps not?).

There is a reason why the university participation rate hovers around 25% globally (if the KTM's impression is correct, cannot seem to find the numbers online for some strange reason) and that is because there is a certain standard that is required of universities and not everyone is cut out to study. In the US, they also have Community Colleges, that are somewhat on par with our polys. They give out associate degrees instead of degrees. Anyone asked why they don't give out degrees instead?

What I am curious about is this 20% figure. Is it a quota, that is we do not accept any more than this number of foreign students?

Let's be realistic here. Our local universities are not so world-class that people are clamouring to come. Another issue is the catchment: the students that we are targetting are from relatively poorer countries like China, India and Vietnam.

Let's ask ourselves a simple question: what types of students do we want? We want the stupid and rich (and can afford to pay) ones or whether we want the smart ones? Let's get real: suppose you have some rich and smart ones, they want to come to Singapore ah? So boh pian, only left with the smart but poor (and cannot afford to come) types. These types you dun give them scholarship, they can come huh?

Therefore, by logical deduction, the 20% must be some sort of a target instead of a quota. With scholarships for these foreign students, it is unlikely that we can achieve 20% foreign students. The national universities have a mission and it's not to take in stupid and rich foreigners just to make money.

amatu:

Pot calling the kettle black eh ;)

Happens all the time doesn't it? :-P

But in any case, don't have to try to be too smart. Some facts are not easily available. Do you know what is the total number of students with at least 3 A's? Of course, the KTM could have called up all the JCs, asked them and added up, but the KTM is too lazy lah. Some numbers you also dun need to know exactly 'cos they are only needed for back-of-the-envelope calculations.

useurblain,

From an economics point of view, a university should match the demands of a skilled workforce with a supply a students capable of completing the course. This is a matter of allocating resources efficiently. For every student with the potential to graduate with a degree but is not given an opportunity to do so, this opportunity cost is paid.

This is a motherhood statement that no one in his right mind can disagree with. :-)

Furthermore if the places go to foreign students at the expense of capable Singaporean citizens, the additional costs of subsidising the foreign students' fees is paid. This is regardless if the foreign student stays to complete his or her bond. Taxpayer's money still goes towards paying for the foreigner's sch fees.

Do remember that the tax payers in Singapore are not only the citizens. If the total contribute to tax income of the foreigners in Singapore exceeds 20% (which is not unlikely), then the Singaporeans tax payers really have very little case to whine.

So the important question is: ARE THERE SINGAPOREANS WHO ARE CAPABLE OF COMPLETING A DEGREE DEPRIVED OF A CHANCE TO DO SO?

The answer is yes and there will always be some no matter what we do. The question is: HOW MANY, and what margins of error can we tolerate? Zero is not an acceptable answer by a long shot.

The typical example that people will cite is that there are these Singaporeans who are "forced" to go overseas and who eventually do well. Of course there will be some (because using the A-Levels to allocate university places is inherently imperfect) and of course they will be upset.

Besides, i find it amazing that some singaporeans go to the extent of suggesting that having more singapore degree holders would devalue his degree

What are the honours awards for?.

Agree with you that having more degree holders will not necessary devalue the degree. However, if you will use your blain, you will realize what these Singaporeans are really saying. Perhaps the KTM can paraphrase for you: if the increase in enrolment results in falling standards and the universities are forced to lower standards in order to pass the students, it will impinge on the reputation of the universities and the previous graduates of the schools will "suffer loss". You are right that the class of honours can help to ameilorate the fallout and "maintain standards". However, there is some glam associated with being identified with a top school and a top school is not one that churns out loads of Third Class graduates.

Not to say that i'm xenophobic, but some people really can't think well.

If the KTM were you, he wouldn't feel too bad about not being able to think well. Seriously, it's not your fault. :-)

Jolly Jester,

Of course a key assumption is that the standard of the A levels is the same throughout the years.

How much faith do you have in this assumption? How many times has the syllabus been changed to "teach less, learn more" over the past 20 years?

If you look at the A-Level results of the top students, you will find SIGNIFICANT improvements in the results. Those in the upper half of the cohort are getting more A's all round. Hands up those who believe that the students today are significantly smarter than those 20 years ago.

The proposition of having some so-called objective grades for entry into the various faculties is untenable for two reasons:

(1) Standards have not been consistent, at least not with the introduction of dunno what Project Work, cutting syllabus, etc. But that's not a *real* problem 'cos at the end of the day, it's equal misery for the entire cohort.

(2) What the A-Levels are good for (barely) is for allocation of university places. Turns out that Singaporeans are like lemmings and demand for the various courses flutuate WILDLY.

About a decade ago, Computer Science was red hot due to the dot com boom, then it crashed and Life Sciences took over and Computer Science become the dumping ground. How long is Life Sciences going to last before it goes out of fashion? Dunno, but sure to happen. There are no jobs you know. Dunno why the lemmings still want to do it. :-)

Also, while some may claim that A,B,D could get into some faculty in the past and now cannot, it has therefore gotten harder, they are missing the big picture. Given the increase in enrolment, there will exist those faculties which have a lower bar. E.g. about a decade ago, would probably have been impossible to get into CS without some A's. Now? Probably a smattering of B's and C's is more than sufficient. Many people are blinkered and only want to see what they want to see.

Ah, people are sad despite the 'facts' again! Maybe we should ask again why people are sad and not happy? KTM, we should look at the super macro picture!

My guess is the economic options of those without a degree are getting fewer and fewer, and the increase of percentage of cohort is not fast enough to compensate for this decrease in options, leaving a larger percentage of each cohort with fewer economic options? I dunno.

If my guess is correct, the solution is well, 1) increasing the number of places to locals or 2) increasing the number of opportunities for the un-degreed. Option 1 looks easier, and might have other payoffs, like maybe a bigger local talent pool in the long term?

Regardless of whether my guess is correct or not, it seems to me that it is a waste of human talent if those who could do well in university are *not* in university. I'm sure many of those foreign students could have gone to university if they did not come to NUS/NTU, whereas many locals who could have gotten those places, would not.

Anyway, I find it very funny that people comprain about grade inflation (thus cannot compare) and then on the other hand claim that foreign students entry grades are better so they should enter. Hello, if you say you cannot compare two different batches of students from the same system, but can compare between foreign students and locals paper-wise from completely alien systems?! I'm sure the foreign students are good on their own merits, but please lah, I'm sure there are more ways to suan local students that don't require an inconsistent worldview.

PS The people at the bottom will always struggle, no matter how absolutely good/bad they are in our universities, because our grades are on a curve. If you believe foreign students are lean, mean academic machines, of course the bottom people will struggle less if you remove them and let the new, lousier students than the the strugglers in. OTOH, if you believe foreign students are normal people, and that beyond a certain point, A Levels can't distinguish between candidates, like I do, the people at the bottom will forever struggle regardless of foreign students.

My guess is the economic options of those without a degree are getting fewer and fewer, and the increase of percentage of cohort is not fast enough to compensate for this decrease in options, leaving a larger percentage of each cohort with fewer economic options? I dunno.

(1) Fact: the percentage of each cohort getting a degree is increasing, not decreasing.

(2) Dunno, but will pretend it's true: The economic options of those without a degree are getting fewer and fewer

(3) Conclusion from (1) and (2): A decreasing percentage of each cohort is enjoying fewer economic options.

The talk about compensation is irrelevant: having an extra person having more economic options because he has a degree does not compensate for there being another person having less options because he does not have a degree. (Analogy: Your being rich does not compensate for me being poor.)

If my guess is correct, the solution is well, 1) increasing the number of places to locals or 2) increasing the number of opportunities for the un-degreed. Option 1 looks easier, and might have other payoffs, like maybe a bigger local talent pool in the long term?

Why would increasing the number of university places to locals increase the local talent pool? Can the university actually do such things? Perhaps you mean increasing the % of the talent pool that has a degree.

In any case, there is an ambiguity in the direction of causation. Suppose it is true that there is a positive correlation between having a degree and having more economic opportunities. It doesn't follow from this that it's the degree that causes the having of more opportunities. It might just as well be the case that some other factor is the cause of both, e.g., it tends to be the hardworking, or smart, or rich, or well connected, whatever, etc., who will get the degree, and also the same who will have more economic options. The possession of the degree is a signal, not a cause. If the possession of the degree is not the real cause, then increasing number of places (or just plain giving out more degrees) won't make any difference.

Molly:

'It could be that, compared to the past, there are now even more people going to either JCs and polys, making the population "eligible" (but not guaranteed, of course) for a uni place greater than before. And if the increase (if any) in "eligible" population "exceeded" the increase from 20% to 23%, then the competition is stiffer and it could indeed be more difficult than before to get a place.'

Holistically speaking, I think we nevertheless have to concede that if indeed the rate has gone up to 23%, then an average singaporean is more likely to be able to make it to a local university today than before. 23%>20%, so a randomly picked youth today is more likely to have made it/be able to make it than before.

When you point out that the 'eligible population' has increased, I think what this really means is that more people are being 'directly rejected' by local universities, as opposed to being 'indirectly rejected' by local universities by not even having qualified for 'pre-U' in the form of JCs and polys, and therefore not even trying.

So your point could really mean that while more local students make it to JCs and Polys these days, thereby raising their expectations and hopes (and therefore possible subsequent disappointments)of making it to local Us, qualifying for JCs and Polys have simply become less of a guarantee that one will make it to a local U these days. This simply means that it is less likely than an average JC/Poly student will make it to university these days. However, holistically, it nevertheless remains the case that the average singaporean is more likely (23>20) to make it to local Us than before. All it simply means is that JCs/Polys have become less of a 'guarantee' or 'automatic route'.

Notice that I use the words 'more likely' rather than 'easier'. Hypothetically, it could of course be the case that students on the whole are smarter/given more opportunities/work harder/less financially burdened at a young age than before, and that therefore compared to the past, an average student today has to work harder/put in more effort in order to make it into that top 23% than the average student in the past, where conditions were less competitive, had to work in order to qualify to be in that top 20% or less. It could be that 20 years ago, 60 to 70% of students were not even bothering trying. This change of course reflects the evolution of conditions, standards and expectations in a society that has rapidly advanced through the years. One could therefore perhaps argue that given the conditions, standards, expectations and perhaps even the needs (skilled labour) of a society at this stage of development, a greater percentage of each cohort should be accepted in local Us than the current 23%.

As for whether it is 'easier' to make it to a local U these days, I suppose it depends on how one defines and measures easiness. If you define easiness by 'probability', than yes, it is indeed easier for the average singaporean these days, since it is more probable that he/she will be part of 23% than 20% or less. If you define easiness by how much work and effort one needs to put in or stress one needs to go through, then the answer is not so clear, and may in fact even be the other way round.

Luddite

Blah blah:

(1) Fact: the percentage of each cohort getting a degree is increasing, not decreasing.

(2) Dunno, but will pretend it's true: The economic options of those without a degree are getting fewer and fewer

(3) Conclusion from (1) and (2): A decreasing percentage of each cohort is enjoying fewer economic options.

1) Fact: Even if it is increasing, has it increased sufficiently? Compare: % of graduates in other developed countries with Singapore.
2) Singapore was a manufacturing based economy. It now pretends to be a knowledge-based economy.
3) Your conclusion does not necessarily hold unless the rate of decreasing options are below the rate of increase in places.

Strictly speaking, compensation does not matter to the short-changed individual. It matters to the system as a whole. Since points 1,2,3 relate to the system, and not to individuals (Hint: the only percentages that apply to a sample of one is 0% and 100%), thus, your point is irrelevant.

In any case, there is an ambiguity in the direction of causation. Suppose it is true that there is a positive correlation between having a degree and having more economic opportunities. It doesn't follow from this that it's the degree that causes the having of more opportunities. It might just as well be the case that some other factor is the cause of both, e.g., it tends to be the hardworking, or smart, or rich, or well connected, whatever, etc., who will get the degree, and also the same who will have more economic options. The possession of the degree is a signal, not a cause. If the possession of the degree is not the real cause, then increasing number of places (or just plain giving out more degrees) won't make any difference.

While, I do not disagree that a degree is a signifier, but the real issue here is university education.

If an education does not add economic options or develop individual talent but instead acts only as a signifier of talent, then we should scrap university education altogether and forget this issue altogether.

the people at the bottom will forever struggle regardless of foreign students

for some reason my gut tells me that these are the very people making a huge fuss on Mr Wang's blog. the things they write are an indication of the quality of their minds, and from what I can see, even if all foreigners are expelled from Singapore, they would still be struggling at the bottom on their bottoms.

RSE,

Maybe we should ask again why people are sad and not happy?

Eh, you from which jungle huh? Since when are people ever happy and contented? :-)

My guess is the economic options of those without a degree are getting fewer and fewer, and the increase of percentage of cohort is not fast enough to compensate for this decrease in options, leaving a larger percentage of each cohort with fewer economic options? I dunno.

You are right and there's a name for this thing you've described. It's called "globalization". That's a political problem that the Government needs to deal with, but to conflate the this issue with the problem of university admissions is a slippery slope. For one, people don't get smarter just by being squeezed by globalization.

Two, the thinking that one will have better opportunities simply because of a degree is flawed as Blah Blah has explained. How often do you think Third Class Honours students get called up for interviews, compared to their First Class and 2nd Upper counterparts?

If my guess is correct, the solution is well, 1) increasing the number of places to locals or 2) increasing the number of opportunities for the un-degreed. Option 1 looks easier, and might have other payoffs, like maybe a bigger local talent pool in the long term?

The KTM believes that your guess is off-mark. Seriously lah, do you think we don't have enough money to pay for more university graduates? The Government is more kuncheong about solving the globalization problem than you, and if a cheap and dirty way of solving the problem exists, i.e. by throwing money at the problem and increasing the number of university places, it wouldn't go and do huh? :-P

The question here is the definition of talent. Singaporeans tend to be myopic and define talent by the piece of paper. That's the problem.

it seems to me that it is a waste of human talent if those who could do well in university are *not* in university.

This statement is ABSOLUTELY true. You have prove that there are A LOT of students who can do well and who are not given the chance. What we do have are a lot of parents who are claiming that their kids can do well and are not given the chance -- that is true. NUS and NTU should just do an experiment: increase the intake and see how many more can survive the first two years and we can talk. :-P

I'm sure many of those foreign students could have gone to university if they did not come to NUS/NTU, whereas many locals who could have gotten those places, would not.

Of course, if the assumption that we're importing smart foreign students is correct. If the foreign students that we are importing CANNOT get into other universities, then they want, we also dowan. A bit duh right?

Anyway, I find it very funny that people comprain about grade inflation (thus cannot compare) and then on the other hand claim that foreign students entry grades are better so they should enter.

There is no confusion if you think through this carefully. Basically, the foreigners are NOT compared to the locals at admission (except for those who have done their 'A' Levels who are small in number compared to the direct imports). It's impossible what. The KTM's example of foreigner with 3 A's is for thought experiment only. When people say that the foreigners are better, what do they mean? Simply that the performance of these students in university (after they get in) are better on average. People just go and count how many of our locals have been topping the Science and Engineering faculties at NUS and NTU over the past 10 years.

It is not that the locals are stupid. It is just that our liberal scholarship policies have led to the hollowing out of talent at the local universities. Many (most?) of our local scholars can most definitely hold their ground if they went to the local universities.

Hello, if you say you cannot compare two different batches of students from the same system, but can compare between foreign students and locals paper-wise from completely alien systems?! I'm sure the foreign students are good on their own merits, but please lah, I'm sure there are more ways to suan local students that don't require an inconsistent worldview.

As the KTM stated, the KTM's view is that education is a public good that should be accessible to all who have the capacity to enjoy it. It would be terrible for us to deny any "eligible" local student of an education but because the foreign students are admitted separately, there is no question of the foreign students are taking up the place of the locals. Hold that thought.

Before we continue, we have to understand that there are two different complaints floating around that tend to be conflated. One, complaints that CANNOT get into university at all; and two, cannot get into course of choice.

While the focus is on the former complaint, it is instructive to address the latter briefly. At the end of the day, there are capacity limits on the various courses. If everyone wants to do Medicine, then somebody will have to get the place and somebody will have be to told no. How to decide is an art that nobody can perfect.

Some people are not happy that Project Work is included in the criteria (because their kids did poorly). But people forget that there are people who are happy (because their kids did well in Project Work) and are not saying anything. Make so much noise for what?

The KTM's view: this whole UAS thing is really bogus. Look at the US, how do they decide who to admit? Shouldn't the universities being the fellas who actually have to deal with the students at the end of the day know better about how to choose students who are equipped to deal with university studies? Also dunno why MOE must go and impose these dunno what rules.

But on second thoughts, MOE is not being stupid either -- because it turns out that Singaporeans take comfort in rules. They LIKE to know how the scores are counted and they like the certainty. They want to know that if their kid scores X points, the kid will get a place. They hate the ambiguity where their kid with 4 A's can be denied a place, while the neighbour's kid with 3 A's will be given a place. They will cry foul and no meritocracy.

So how? What's MOE going to do? :-) My view: leave it to the universities lah. Central Government doesn't always know best. Also, can taichi away some responsibility what. Let the universities take the flak on the selection loh.

PS The people at the bottom will always struggle, no matter how absolutely good/bad they are in our universities, because our grades are on a curve.

This is when you need to understand one thing: the university lecturers teach the same thing year in, year out. The standards are quite consistent 'cos there can only be so much creativity.

Your impression seems to be one where people should just impose a curve on the population of students, but no dear, go and talk to the lecturers. What's happening is that the bottom of the barrel has only be getting lower over the years and most of them are the locals. There's a limit to how low the bar can go without compromising academic standards.

While in your naive view, it's all about grades, it's not. If a student cannot master the fundamentals of lessons being taught in the early years, it would be a traversity to pass the student and make him/her someone else's problem when he/she goes on to take higher level classes.

People like to think that they are invincible and can do all things with hard work. Most of the people who are posting on this forum and reading these blogs are highly educated and to them university education is no big deal. The world is bigger than them. The realities on the ground can be quite ugly.

If you believe foreign students are lean, mean academic machines, of course the bottom people will struggle less if you remove them and let the new, lousier students than the the strugglers in. OTOH, if you believe foreign students are normal people, and that beyond a certain point, A Levels can't distinguish between candidates, like I do, the people at the bottom will forever struggle regardless of foreign students.

Foreign students are not part of the equation. People just like to blame their own failures on others. :-P

At the end of the day, what people want is simply: dun pay for the foreigners and give that 20% of the places to locals instead. What's the consequence? Lowering of standards of the students overall -- and very likely many of these extra 20% will end up flunking out and getting Third Class Honours (but the KTM admits that he is speculating). Fat lot of good that will do to making the universities "Boston of the East". :-)

Of course there will be parents who don't really care and still want this because their children are involved and will benefit. Hasn't it always been every man for himself? :-P Fair enough. KTM's view: let's try and see loh. Just be prepared to flunk an extra 20% of the cohort, if there is a need to do so if people cannot make the grade.

This is a random point: the funding model for the universities is actually not incentive-compatible in the KTM's view. Universities are currently funded on the basis of how many graduates they produce. Economically quite sound since universities is the producer of manpower and Government is the "consumer" of manpower. Why should Government pay for students who don't that the universities do not produce (i.e. drop out)?

But one has to understand the budgetary pressures on the universities to thereby graduate students. One can claim that the universities should go and balance maintaining standards and getting the dough, but is this the right way to go?

If an education does not add economic options or develop individual talent but instead acts only as a signifier of talent, then we should scrap university education altogether and forget this issue altogether.

An education will add economic options to those who have the capacity to absorb it. There is a limit to how much different individuals can study and how far they can go. For those who cannot, it's not the end of the road either lah. As Piper says, a change of mindset is probably what's needed. Their talents could just lie elsewhere and going to university is both a suffering and a waste of time.

Blah Blah, Luddite & Han,

Thanks for your comments.

I get the distinct feeling in this discussion that we are assuming,

- If 20% quota is reserved for foreigners, 80% is left for locals? (am I mistaken?)

When I was studying in Singapore (yes, foreign-type, stop the hate, please), it used to be that competition for a place in University for citizens and foreigners was completely separate. The 20% quota just referred to the foreigners pool and we were competing amongst ourselves.

20% doesn't mean "20% of the total number of admissions".

The way I understood it was,

- you had 1000 foreigners applying and 1000 citizens applying for university

- only 200 of the foreigners were going to get in. 800 of the foreigners were not

- it could be that 900 of the citizens were getting in while 100 were not. But this percentage was definitely higher compared to the 20% for foreigners.

- nobody would tell you the exact make-up of the total number of admissions because I -think- this was entirely up to the discretion of the University in question. In other words, they could adjust the the total intake each year depending on the number of applicants because let's face it, school fees from undergraduates was a form of revenue for the University.

- so, I always thought Singaporeans were not getting the raw end of the deal. I didn't know the quota for citizens then because it really wasn't any of my business.

So, if the above still holds true, then why are people attacking foreign-types online, -again-? I mean, you are really crowded out by Singaporeans capable of raising the university admission requirements for Singaporeans. There is also the possibility that maybe "citizens" in the above example doesn't include PR, I don't really know. If it doesn't include PR, then I just think the competition for the foreigners pool is stiffer, isn't it?

In the case of foreign students, I think we need to realize there are generally, 2 groups of them. One group is those who get a scholarship from MOE (or other organizations) to study in Singapore and the other is those who pay for their own education.

For the first group, whether or not they still have the scholarship depends on a yearly evaluation that consists primarily how well they do in school (i.e grades average). If they fall below the stipulated average persistently - maybe 1-3 years? Not sure, it's different, depending on the sponsor - they will need to pack up and go home or in some cases, pay back a portion of the scholarship (because it's taxpayer money, duh?). So, isn't it logical for these students to push themselves very hard to excel? On top of that, the scholarship is not bond-free. I think they serve more than 3-year bond in some cases. These students have a tendency to drive themselves -harder- than normal students (study during vacations, breaks etc) but can you blame them?

For the second group, they pay for their education and the education fees are something like 3-4 times what a Singaporean would pay. E.g. Engineering could cost SGD 6000 per year for a citizen, while it would cost SGD 20,000 per year for a foreigner. A few years ago, the Singapore dollar was already very strong. Case in point, SGD to RM exchange rate was 1:1.5. So in ringgit terms for our Malaysian students, 20k x 1.5 = RM 30,000 per year. A four year course would mean RM 120,000 and that's just school fees alone. Accomodations, meals, transport, books, notes, exam fees and other miscellaneous fees were not factored in yet. How much is RM 120,000 to a Malaysian? Well, you can buy a condominium (no loan, no mortgage), after 4 years and it's bigger than a 5-room flat.

Fortunately, for this group of students, the Singapore government is kind enough to reduce the school fees to the equivalence of what a Singaporean would pay, on the condition that, after these students graduate, they work in Singapore for 3-years to contribute to the workforce (pay back taxpayer money!). But, they still have to fork out SGD 6000 per year, so it's not like it's a free ride as most would seem to think ...

And you ask, why would this group of students still want to come to Singapore to study if they come from relatively well-to-do families?

My personal experience is I really cannot compete with all the Malaysian non-muslims (Chinese, Indians etc) in the whole of Malaysia for a 10% place in my country's university. 10% as in 10% of the total cohort. I study and work harder than my Muslim neighbour but I know my neighbour is going to get into coveted spots like dentistry, pharmacy, law with just B and C average while I need to get a minimum A average.

On top of that, I'm subjected to a Malay General Paper (Malay is not my mother tongue) where the questions in this paper are specially written to trick non-native Malay speaking students. You are given paragraphs that have very obscure words that even a native speaker don't normally use or are phrased in a non-standard form that unless you are previously exposed to it from a Malay friend, you are going to fail miserably.

Ironically, my parents pay their taxes dutifully every year and the amount paid is more than my Muslim neighbour even though our total family income is compatible.

Hermes,

I get the distinct feeling in this discussion that we are assuming,

- If 20% quota is reserved for foreigners, 80% is left for locals? (am I mistaken?)

I think the 20% is more like a target than a quota. My understanding is that the number of places allocated for locals and foreigners are separate.

Singaporeans seem to think that they should compete on par with the foreign students. Structurally, it's hard to compare locals and (direct import) foreign students, but based on the subsquent performance in university (and I'm sure you have seen for yourself) the foreign students do perform better on average and the difference can be quite significant. If we can figure out how to compare the two groups fairly at admission and have them compete on equal terms, locals are likely to be worse off.

But that's not the point. The foreign students have a function -- and that's to prop up the standards of the local universities.

The point is to figure out which of the locals can complete their university education meaningfully and give them all an education. It turns out that everyone thinks that their kid is capable and deserving -- but is that a surprise?

There are some fellas who seem to claim that all the foreigners are lousy. Talk about Singaporeans being overly full of themselves. :-) How many of these fellas topped their respective Departments?

In any case, the selection process for the foreign students is not perfect and the locals are not idiots either. If every single local is worse than ALL the foreign students, then Singapore is really a basket case and got no hope. Fortunately, this is not the case. :-)

So perhaps we have a local student who managed to beat all the foreign students in his Department/Faculty, does it mean that the foreign students are all lousy and that all Singaporean students are better? Did this fella fall on the borderline when he/she applied for university admission? Probably not what, so what does it prove other than "I not stupid"? :-)

The 20% quota just referred to the foreigners pool and we were competing amongst ourselves.

Correct. Most of the foreigners are admitted separately from the locals and the locals compete among themselves.

A minor qualifier is that some of the foreigners who do their 'A'-Levels will compete with the locals in the general admission process since they can be compared somewhat fairly with the locals, but the number of such students is fairly small compared to the direct imports.

Anyhow, don't have to get too sensitive or defensive. Singaporeans are by and large quite accepting of Malaysians. Most of the angst is directed at the foreign students of other nationalities.

Actually, someone should just go and do a statistical study:

First, what is the proportion of students who are flunking out? If the proportion is quite high, then case closed, we are at the limits of what the population can do. If it's not, then perhaps there is a case for increasing enrolment.

Second, do a correlation study of UAS scores with subsequent academic performance. If the correlation is really bad, then better go and change the UAS scoring system.

There is a scientific way to settle this issue.

I just read Mr Wang's post and KTM's article (been so busy) on this issue, had a view, and decide to post my first comment on this issue. I hope my extrapolation that many points in these two articles interact is an obvious one.

Mr Wang's argument, I think, starts from at least two assumptions.

1) That the A' Level Standards (substitute poison of choice) over the years are generally the same.

2) Everyone above a particular and rather intuitive A Level Standard deserves a place in a Singaporean University if the person is Singaporean ("deserving Singaporeans")

Assuming that these two assumptions are right, it is not difficult to conclude that with limited resources, a university scheme that has a 'foreign' component with attractive benefits and the like, might affect some "deserving Singaporeans" even if a larger percentage of Singaporeans are attending Universities if universities are not expanding fast enough.

After all, assume that all foreign places are now close and now open only to local students. The "market rate" will drop and more "deserving Singaporeans" will enter university despite the increase number of Singaporeans this cohort + the better standards.

So I think Mr Wang's comments are fair considering his (my extrapolated) assumptions. I have particular sympathy for his (again my extrapolate) second assumption (or sentiment). So I think KTM does too somewhat, and most of the readers. It is the put Singaporeans first somewhat sentiment.

I am also of the opinion that the MOE does somewhat recognize this in their rather recent efforts to boost Uni-education numbers for Singaporeans. In fact, I think MOE does share those above assumptions somewhat or else why bother trying to make more places (unless of course to make Singaporeans happy - but that is another point altogether),

The question posed then is whether the MOE is doing enough. And I think unlike Mr Wang, the gahmen will soon be doing enough but this one is quite a bump because of the dragon babies. But while being generally on the right track is praiseworthy, this episode is not a nice one.

Foreign students are here to 1) become citizens to contribute to our policy of many people, 2) make NUS/NTU a world class university because of point system. More and better qualified foreigners are necessary to make this happen. Universities are also center of influences. Good stuff. Good for public policy. ASEAN scholars might become future leaders. Good for Singapore in so many ways.

Such an incident which causes some to blame foreigners and the government should have been prevented. It brings to bear a policy that is instinctively unpopular with the electorate - even those who do not have children that will one day attend universities. I suspect they (the gahmen) thought SMU,NSW (Asia), and perhaps SIM would have been enough.

1) You have not addressed the issue of resouces wasted (including opportunity cost of not developing a capable uni applicant)

2)Do all parents of foreign students pay tax in singapore? A quote like "Do remember that the tax payers in Singapore are not only the citizens. If the total contribute to tax income of the foreigners in Singapore exceeds 20% (which is not unlikely), then the Singaporeans tax payers really have very little case to whine." is simply not acceptable.

Firstly that's ur assumption. Secondly, how about students whose parents do not work in sg? How about all the scholarship money/bursaries spent on them instead of similarly able students from sg?

3)"So the important question is: ARE THERE SINGAPOREANS WHO ARE CAPABLE OF COMPLETING A DEGREE DEPRIVED OF A CHANCE TO DO SO?

The answer is yes and there will always be some no matter what we do. The question is: HOW MANY, and what margins of error can we tolerate? Zero is not an acceptable answer by a long shot. "

And why not? It's not like ppl dun have to pay to go to uni. They paid either through taxes as well as the non-subsidised portion of it. Besides if you think that it's a waste of resource to educate the so called "poorer" students, an option for them to pay the full fee in order to go to uni can be implemented.

4) "Perhaps the KTM can paraphrase for you: if the increase in enrolment results in falling standards and the universities are forced to lower standards in order to pass the students, it will impinge on the reputation of the universities and the previous graduates of the schools will "suffer loss". You are right that the class of honours can help to ameilorate the fallout and "maintain standards". However, there is some glam associated with being identified with a top school and a top school is not one that churns out loads of Third Class graduates."

What makes u think that standards will drop to pass the students? U mean the lecturers will pass all the "lousy" students to save their jobs? Careful u might get sued for such "dangerous remarks" :) Glam associated with a top sch? Haha. Assuming lecturers in NUS are impartial and will not "cheat" to save their asses, which u blindly assumed, aren't all students capable of passing their course deserving of their degree? For example a student with Bs for A levels might end up doing better than one with all As.

5)"If the KTM were you, he wouldn't feel too bad about not being able to think well. Seriously, it's not your fault. :-)"

;)

KTM,

How much faith do you have in this assumption? How many times has the syllabus been changed to "teach less, learn more" over the past 20 years?

I think I have quite a bit of faith in that assumption. But its only my opinion lar, no stats etc to back it up lar. Just remembered that usually the very early questions of ten year series (for my era that's like the 80s papers) were usually rather simple questions.

Afterall with the increased amount of time spent studying by the kids nowadays, with much more availability of knowledge, better nutrition (for the brain) etc, it will be quite a disappointment if the younger generation is not as good as the older one in exams right?

I hesitate to use the word 'smarter' though, as Singaporean students have largely evolved (in my opinion) to become specialised exam takers.... but for the purposes of comparing the same A level paper, students now should be much better at it than the students of the past.

KTM + several commenters have touched on the crux of the current 'problem', though they have not named it -- possible grade inflation in the A-levels.

More students have been getting good grades in the A-levels over the past decade. It is likely that some of the improvement is attributable to factors that do not indicate higher competence, e.g. better teaching to the test, reducing of syllabus requirements etc.

In that case, good results become weaker signals. Existing local universities have decided to respond by raising entry requirements to maintain (or even increase) student quality. I do not think they are all that autonomous as to run afoul of MOE on this, so there is at least a tacit approval from the higher ups.

Does that mean that MOE also believes the grade-inflation story?

Another factor is demographics - with future cohorts likely to be smaller because of the past declines in birth rates, perhaps it isn't wise to raise enrollments. The handling of the dragon cohort may not have been the best, but that cohort is one out of twelve.

But the most important factor IMO is the notion that 25% of P1 cohort is the right target to decide how many people go into university. Is that the right number? How do we decide? How did THEY decide?

Serendipity,

Thanks for your comments. Let's address your two assumptions in turn:

1) That the A' Level Standards (substitute poison of choice) over the years are generally the same.

On what basis would we come to such a conclusion given the numerous syllabus changes over the years, the phenomenal increase in the number of students scoring straight-A's and the introduction of Project Work? We have faith in MOE that they are so good at calibrating their exams so that a 'B' today is the same as a 'B' 10 years ago?

2) Everyone above a particular and rather intuitive A Level Standard deserves a place in a Singaporean University if the person is Singaporean ("deserving Singaporeans")

Intuitive you say? Good, help me out here:

Is A,B,E better or B,B,B better? B,B,B? Fair enough.

Is A,B,E better or B,B,C better?
B,B,C? Fair enough.

Is A,B,E better or B,C,C better?
A,B,E? Fair enough.

Whoops. Forgot GP. Let's try again:

Is A,B,E,B3 GP better or B,B,B,A1 GP better?

How about A,B,E,A1 GP and B,B,B,B3 GP?

....

Lest the KTM becomes an optician instead of a KTM, hope you get the point. There's nothing at all intuitive about how to rank students with their A-Level results. When we want to decide what is "deserving", there must first be a way to rank the students because there will eventually be a need to draw that line.

The only thing that seems intuitive to the KTM is apparently the argument that "my son/daughter is Singaporean and I pay taxes" and therefore he/she is good enough because we need to put Singaporeans first.

Assuming that these two assumptions are right ... I think Mr Wang's comments are fair considering his (my extrapolated) assumptions.

But if these assumptions are wrong and way off mark, then Mr Wang's comments are _______? (You can fill in the blanks) :-P

this episode is not a nice one.

Er, "not nice" is somewhat of an understatement. :-)

Such an incident which causes some to blame foreigners and the government should have been prevented.

This is a very bad time. Minister salaries are going up. GST is going up. Even cable prices are going up. Globalization is a problem unsolved and people dun see no real prospects in their real incomes. They do however see the rich getting richer because the economy IS DOING WELL. So there's a lot of angst and unhappiness on the ground.

Notwithstanding, this is no excuse for people to go off stirring up xenophobic sentiments and shooting their mouth off without exercising their brains. What you see is simply a reflection of the kind of society we've become and the quality of our people.

The KTM was just thinking a little harder about the apparently OBVIOUS fix of increasing the intake by 20% and giving people the chance to try and see.

Think about what will happen in practice if we increased intake by 20%. What will probably happen is this thing called equal misery: every faculty all increase by 20%. So Medicine intake increases by another 20%. How many of these new students will flunk out? Practically none 'cos Medicine will still be getting the best students. The only reason to control the number of Medicine students is that it's expensive to train them and we only need some number X. If people want to argue that the Government hasn't gotten the number X right, that's not something that the KTM is interested to discuss. At the end of the day, the demand for places in Medicine outstrips supply and the line must be drawn somewhat.

So what will happen if intake increases by 20% for people to try out? Given the present system, the dumping ground faculties will just get stuck with more weak students and most of the students will flunk out there. Makes the problem of course mismatches described earlier even worse. Nasty.

The moral of the story is simply that there is really no easy fix.

useurblain,

1) You have not addressed the issue of resouces wasted (including opportunity cost of not developing a capable uni applicant)

Not sure what you are saying. The KTM has addressed it and said that it is imperative to give everyone willing and capable of obtaining a university education the chance at it.

You have not addressed the issue of resources and time wasted by admitting students who do not have the capacity for a university education and eventually flunk out.

Firstly that's ur assumption. Secondly, how about students whose parents do not work in sg? How about all the scholarship money/bursaries spent on them instead of similarly able students from sg?

The assumption? The Singaporeans who have demanded that the scholarships to the foreign students be scrapped seem to have assumed that they are paying all the taxes and therefore their children should have first right.

That assumption is flawed because there are a million foreigners currently in Singapore and they pay taxes also. Since only 20% of the students are foreigners, the KTM's point is that as long as the foreigners working in Singapore contribute at least 20% to the tax revenues, it can be argued that they are paying for their own kind. You have issues with that?

And why not? It's not like ppl dun have to pay to go to uni. They paid either through taxes as well as the non-subsidised portion of it. Besides if you think that it's a waste of resource to educate the so called "poorer" students, an option for them to pay the full fee in order to go to uni can be implemented.

It's nothing about whether the parents can or cannot pay. The KTM is just a realist. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to come up with a system that correctly identifies every single person capable of completing a university education. There will always be these unlucky fellas who are really quite bright, but for some obscure reason get straight D's. Or to put it another way, the only way to do it is to let EVERYONE have a go.

What makes u think that standards will drop to pass the students?

Because of the current funding model where MOE pays for each student that the universities graduate.

Assuming lecturers in NUS are impartial and will not "cheat" to save their asses, which u blindly assumed, aren't all students capable of passing their course deserving of their degree?

The KTM would like to agree with you that NUS lecturers are impartial and will not "cheat" to save their asses. Seriously. :-)

The KTM has not assumed anything other than the fact that by increasing enrolment, we are not going to get a significant number of extra geniuses going to the local universities. While the A-Levels are not perfect as a quantifier of merit, it is not completely useless either and there will more likely than not be an increase in the number of weaker students and students who will have a harder time passing their courses.

If you want to assume that there is this magical "requisite grade" for the A-Levels that once a students attains, he/she therefore is guaranteed to be able to do well enough at the university to pass his/her course, the KTM respects your view, but he can tell you honestly, he doesn't buy it. :-P

Jolly Jester,

I think I have quite a bit of faith in that assumption. But its only my opinion lar, no stats etc to back it up lar. Just remembered that usually the very early questions of ten year series (for my era that's like the 80s papers) were usually rather simple questions.

Fair enough. The KTM respects your view, but he will say that he doesn't have much faith in the same at all (but neither does he have the stats to back up his claim). :-)

Afterall with the increased amount of time spent studying by the kids nowadays, with much more availability of knowledge, better nutrition (for the brain) etc, it will be quite a disappointment if the younger generation is not as good as the older one in exams right?

Okay lah, it's not just nutrition. It's also affluence. How many Singaporean kids today have to help out at his/her father's hawker stall at night? And this exam smart thing is for real one. Perfectly possible to do well at the A-Levels without having much of a clue as to what's really going on.

Nevertheless, two points to highlight:
(1) Students getting smarter or not says nothing about the standards of the actual A-Level exams. Given the numerous changes, there is a high likelihood that standards have changed lah.
(2) Due to the very fact that students are doing significantly better due to exam smartness, tuition, whatever, the correlation between how well a student does at A-Levels and how well he/she will do in university is seriously weakened. As useurblain says, it is perfectly possible for a student with Bs for A levels to end up doing better than one with all As, and similarly for one who didn't get admitted to pass a course in university and for one who got admitted to flunk out.

There will always be some error at the margins. The question is: what is the size of the error??

Jason,

But the most important factor IMO is the notion that 25% of P1 cohort is the right target to decide how many people go into university. Is that the right number? How do we decide? How did THEY decide?

Well said. Dunno exactly how they decide lah, but one can venture a guess. First, it's by looking at the corresponding rates for the other countries that are ahead of us in development, since that provides us with an estimate on the limits of human capacity with regards a university education, taking into account that there's likely to be an over-estimate in many countries since their people started whining louder and earlier than our own and their Governments are politically weaker (as in need to pander to the demands of the people more liberally).

Then hor, go and ask the universities, "Ooi, suppose we ask you to increase the intake of by x%, you think how? Based on your experience, the extra students can pass?"

Then, there's probably also an economic element, as in MOE will go and ask MTI or MOM, "Eh, got jobs for these people if they graduate or not?" If we produce a lot of graduates with no jobs waiting for them when they graduate, it's another political problem. Isn't that what's already happening with Life Sciences?

How else would MOE do it? Budget constraints? Unlikely. These fellas are building some sports stadium or something in EVERY school is it not? :-P

useurblain:

You have not addressed the issue of resouces wasted (including opportunity cost of not developing a capable uni applicant)

ok, let us first look at your initial assertion.

From an economics point of view, a university should match the demands of a skilled workforce with a supply a students capable of completing the course. This is a matter of allocating resources effeciently. For every student with the potential to graduate with a degree but is not given an opportunity to do so, this opportunity cost is paid.

you state that a university must do 2 things. (1)meet the demands of "a skilled workforce" (2) admit students capable of completing the course

I don't know about you, but the first requirement has no meaning. What do you mean meet the demands of a skilled workforce? If you mean to say that the university must meet the demands of the labour market, then I submit to you that our universities have never been able to fulfil this function because they have been micromanaged by the government according to what the government deems to be required.

You must understand, a centralised decision-making bureaucracy will always face information deficit and time-lag problems. Governments will never be able to anticipate the demands of the market. If it did, the Soviet Union would still be around today, and China would still be communist.

If you mean to say that the university should meet the demands of the government, then it is precisely doing that! The government demands a certain number of foreign students, and the universities comply.

I submit to you that under ANY kind of government intervention with the university system, there will ALWAYS be wastage of resources. But if government intervention is done according to what YOU propose, I argue that the resource wastage will be WORSE.

The reasoning has to do with the second requirement that you state. You state that universities should admit students who have the ability to complete the course. This is eminently reasonable, and as a matter of practicality, there should not be any other type of students that universities admit.

However, I suggest that the answer is to be found not by looking at the top, but at the bottom. You go ask teachers, lecturers and professors at our local universities, who the bottom students are. Those who regularly fail, those who have no idea what their courses are about, those who do not want to do the course that they are in at all, but are merely doing it for the sake of a degree.

I guarantee that almost all of them are native singaporeans, if not all. These people do not deserve a place at uni, or at least, should not be in uni at all because that's not where their strengths are.

I submit to you that there are already too many people in uni who should not even be there. Giving priority to Singaporeans OVER foreigners who can be shown to be more capable would only just increase the numbers of the undeserving.

Han,

I submit to you that there are already too many people in uni who should not even be there. .

Let's not carry this too far. We need the figures before we can make any statements on whether there are TOO MANY Singaporeans in university today who don't deserve to be there. We know there are some for sure, but they do drop out, so it's not like it's the end of the world -- and to give people at least a chance is not entirely a bad proposition.

Conversely, we also know that there are some fellas who would do well in university but who somehow fail to make it because of the way that the current university places are assigned with the dunno what UAS system and because the A-Levels are, well, questionable in some ways.

Some of the concerns on the ground of individuals denied a place in university even though they may be fully capable of doing well ARE VALID. How the university admission criteria should be tuned is another question entirely. Quite sure no one has the answer and no matter what people do, there will be a margin of error.

The key is to find a balance and to approach the issue in a level-headed way. The problem is that this discussion has degenerated into a xenophobic frenzy (perhaps not here, but elsewhere).

Giving priority to Singaporeans OVER foreigners who can be shown to be more capable would only just increase the numbers of the undeserving

The KTM has no doubts that the bar for locals is already lower than that for the foreigners -- but this doesn't mean that the locals are undeserving either.

Remember that we are not here to be "fair" to the foreign students (but it's not like we should mistreat them either lah). They are here not because we have a love for them, but because they are needed to prop up standards left behind by the vacuum caused by our scholarship policies.

We should also refraining from branding local students as undeserving because some do not do quite as well as their foreigner counterparts.

Ultimately, the KTM's view is: (i) the foreign students have a purpose, so let's leave them alone; and (ii) we need to figure out whether we should have more university places for the locals and this decision should be INDEPENDENT of the foreign students.

The answer to (ii) cannot be a yes simply because of all the cow-pehing. If it's to be a yes, we need have the evidence to support that conclusion. If it's to be a no, then it should be a no loh and we can move on (but matter should be reviewed periodically). :-P

Problem with people is that once worked up into a frenzy, all cannot think straight. :-)

Useurblain,

In addition to what Han has stated, all of which I completely agree with, my opinion is that your standard that entry to university for all students with the ability to complete a course is too low a standard.

I am a graduate from NUS and I can tell you that it doesn't take much to pass. In fact, I will go as far as to say that it is quite difficult to fail(this applies only to people who do bother to put in the barest barest minimum). I know of many people who never attended a lecture, did not show the barest hint of interest, invested the minimum effort to produce shoddy work to just get a pass. And pass, they did.

This is not to cast an aspersion on such people and nor am I being elitist by looking down on them. Not everyone is destined to be a university graduate. And in my opinion, to force these people into doing what they are not interested in is what I call 'wasting resources'. Different individuals have different strengths, merits, values and interests. Here in Singapore, at least for many Singaporeans, there is only one sure-fire route to success - which is a university degree.

When I say force, I do not mean physical force. It may be the employment of gentle persuasion, the sideway glance of an elder member of a family when a kid proclaims that he wants to be an actor next time. It may be the showering of praise on someone who has done well for math and science, while in contraast, another kid who has attained equally good grades in the arts is dismissed as 'arts is a soft subject, very easy to do well one!'

Let me give you an example. Somone who might have been a world class musician might have abandoned his passion because of this dogged, single-minded pursuit of the Singaporean receipe of success.

I wonder how many world class writers, artists, singers, actors, Olympic Champions Singapore had sacrificed to the altar of the Singapore Dream just to churn out factories of bankers, accountants, financial advisors and engineers?

This is what I call true wastage. That people have failed to harness their true potential in the mindless pursuit of another person's version and formula of success which was not even their own in the first place?

That's why I concur with Han and KTM. There are actually many many people who really should not be in university. They are just not cut out for it, nor are they even interested in it. To compound the problem by increasing the capacity to include EVERY individual who can complete the degree is just not feasible and is definitely not a solution to reduce any 'wastage of resources'.

A university degree is not the be all and end all and definition of success. Many Singaporeans view it as a stepping stone to greater things, but it shouldn't be. Success is a concept that is bigger than that and should encompass and embrace myriad versions. Many people who have failed to complete university or who never made it to university have made it big, one of the most famous being Steve Jobs. There are also many poly graduates in Singapore who started their own business who ended up being way more successful than many university graduates.

My friends, may i direct you all to Molly's words of wisdom. Indeed it can be seen that the paper chase has gotten to many people's heads such that people think not getting a degree is akin to a sentence of death. And if the critical mass thinks this way then it will be this way until such time as people choose to start thinking.

http://mollymeek.livejournal.com/158911.html

Just popping out of my cave for a bit...

Might there be some value in giving the student's percentile ranking as part of the A-Level results, especially for those who have an A grade in a subject?

This would add another objective dimension which universities can use to distinguish between candidates.

It would also act as a hedge against grade inflation.

Shae

"There are also many poly graduates in Singapore who started their own business who ended up being way more successful than many university graduates."

Do you mind explaining what you mean by being way more successful? I am interested in hearing about your definition of success.

Is your assumption that university graduates must be more successful than poly graduates?

Thanks

I hope you dont mind me for suggesting, but I think you can ask MOE for how many 3 A's level student.

Since you know that everyone, in their own way or another, is a pot, why make such a comment on others? Perhaps, shouldnt we show respect instead of disregard? Of course, you are you own judgement and ive no say, but i thought a little self-restrained would do good for everyone. Ultimately, happiness is what everyone is striving for ;)

Sze Meng,

If you are asking for my own personal definition of success, my definition is happiness, love, contentment, satisfaction at doing the best at what I can do and knowledge that I am of value to another person. I don't quantify or equate success with money and/or social status.

But the problem is, I suspect a lot of Singaporeans equate the notion of success with money. And I used that yardstick of success (which I must emphasize is not mine)when I made the statement that poly graduates who are more successful than university graduates. The local newspapers have habitually reported the success stories of such people.

These are people who bucked the trend, took the road less travelled by setting up their own business instead of joining some huge MNC or bank and ended up reaping huge financial profits.

Maybe my post wasn't clear, and you misunderstood me.

My assumption is not that university graduates must be more successful than poly graduates. My assumption was that many of these Singaporeans who clamour for places at university feel that a university degree is a pre-requisite and/or ticket to success.

If my assumption had in deed been as you had misread, that university graduates must be more successful than poly graduates, then I would not have summarised my whole entry by ending off with the statement that there are many non-university graduates who are far more successful than university graduates.

I reiterate my last paragraph, which I had thought to be clear enough, but apparently wasn't:

'A university degree is not the be all and end all and definition of success. Many Singaporeans view it as a stepping stone to greater things, but it shouldn't be. Success is a concept that is bigger than that and should encompass and embrace myriad versions. Many people who have failed to complete university or who never made it to university have made it big, one of the most famous being Steve Jobs. There are also many poly graduates in Singapore who started their own business who ended up being way more successful than many university graduates.'

KTM,

It actually appears that we are in agreement on many issues (again, and darn it I want to fight), but have different philosophical approaches to the same thing :). There's one thing I would like to clarify though, the reason I said that the foreigner is perfectly capable of getting a place is that I am assuming that there are actually decent universities in their home country, and that they are deserving of their university place.

I mean, other than rejected deserving locals, there are rejected deserving foreigners right? In terms of human resources, talent and individual talent, which rejection is a greater tragedy? Like you, I view it as a tradeoff between different types of error.

Certainly, there is a huge number of rejected locals that can 'make it'. If not, why are Australian universities such an essential part of our education system?

Take note I also have been talking to profs/educators too, and I've heard all sorts of different opinions. Some feel that the situation is unfair to locals, while others see things differently. I also come from a faculty with a majority of foreign students. Of course la, they occupy the majority of the top places. They also occupy the majority of the bottom. Isn't that absolutely normal? Bottom or top, I cannot say that they did not deserve their place. Same with the locals.

What I really cannot buy is the notion that 'we need foreigners to prop up standards'. I can accept that we need them for diversity (in fact, I want more diversity! NTU/NUS should source for foreign students from a greater variety of places); I can accept that we need them for networking; I can even accept we need them to boost our rankings. I doubt the quality of the rejects are appalling enough that they pull down standards by their mere presence. I don't think any of my foreign friends, although mostly decent and hardworking, can be credited for pulling up standards.

I also think you overrate those scholars we send overseas, in any case, are you saying those 20% of university places would have been filled if not for our scholarship policies (and furthermore that our scholars would have filled up about 40-70% of certain courses)? Or are you saying our scholars are so great that we need those 20% of foreigners to make up for that x% loss? The distribution and numbers simply do not make sense.

Shae, Ned Stark & Sze Meng,

Thanks for your comments.

Speranza Nuova,

Might there be some value in giving the student's percentile ranking as part of the A-Level results, especially for those who have an A grade in a subject?

It all depends on how the admission decision is made. If you are suggesting simply that we use the percentage ranking to compute the UAS scores differently, then the KTM believes that it is not going to make any difference because the MAIN PROBLEM is figuring out how to compare apples with oranges.

In any case, further differentiation among the straight-A students will only address the allegations of unfairness on the allocation of places for courses like Medicine and Law. It doesn't address the main problem which is how to draw the line at who should or should not get a university place. We are essentially talking about those at the bottom and these fellas are not your straight-A students.

amatu,

I hope you dont mind me for suggesting, but I think you can ask MOE for how many 3 A's level student.

Interesting thought. :-) Just for kicks, why don't you try calling up MOE and asking them to tell you the number of students who got 3 A's in last year's A-Level examinations. Do you know who to call? Do you think they will entertain you? Very likely they will ask you: why you want to know. What are you going to say? I kay poh? ;-P

Actually, the KTM could probably have sent a letter to the Forum Page and gotten an answer, but in case you didn't understand the KTM in his earlier response, it doesn't really matter if the number is 1,100, 1,200 or 1,555, or even 990. The point that the KTM is trying to make is that there are A LOT of these fellas and no one seems to be disagreeing with KTM on this count. :-)

Since you know that everyone, in their own way or another, is a pot, why make such a comment on others? Perhaps, shouldnt we show respect instead of disregard? Of course, you are you own judgement and ive no say, but i thought a little self-restrained would do good for everyone. Ultimately, happiness is what everyone is striving for ;)

Perhaps you have failed to notice that the KTM has a penchant for stating the obvious? :-P You mean "disdain", not "disregard" right? Hehe. You may wish to know that the KTM has already showed significant restraint in writing this piece. You are right, perhaps the KTM should try to be more charitable. :-)

Ultimately, different people seek happiness in different ways. Some find happiness in trying to show the world that they are smarter than the Garmen. Others, perhaps find happiness by attempting to bring some sense and reason into this madness known as the blogosphere. To each his own lah. :-P

RSE,

the reason I said that the foreigner is perfectly capable of getting a place is that I am assuming that there are actually decent universities in their home country, and that they are deserving of their university place.

I mean, other than rejected deserving locals, there are rejected deserving foreigners right?

You are absolutely right on this count. If we take everyone in the whole and award places at the local universities based on absolute merit (if hypothetically we can measure this), the most local students probably wouldn't smell a place at NUS/NTU. That's a fact, BUT....

In terms of human resources, talent and individual talent, which rejection is a greater tragedy? Like you, I view it as a tradeoff between different types of error.

Singapore is not running a charity when it comes to admitting foreign students -- and as the KTM had stated earlier, there is no reason why the tragedy of some foreign students being denied a place is of concern to him. They are not his problem. They are not Singapore's problem and Singapore is under no obligation to be "fair" to the students from the rest of the world.

Certainly, there is a huge number of rejected locals that can 'make it'. If not, why are Australian universities such an essential part of our education system?

Er, do you have any idea how much Singaporeans students are contributing to Australia's GDP and why we are building (or rather TRYING to build) more universities to try to claw back some of the lost revenue?

It seems that your assumption is that a Singaporean who can graduate from an Australian university is therefore one who "can make it"? The KTM will not say too much lest he gets flamed by certain quarters if he gets mis-interpreted, but as his story above shows, not every Australian graduate is necessarily up to the mark. There is also no denying that some Singaporeans who are deserving of a place at the local university are not getting places because they fared poorly at the A-Levels.

Take note I also have been talking to profs/educators too, and I've heard all sorts of different opinions. Some feel that the situation is unfair to locals, while others see things differently.

So your profs have told you that the bottom of the barrel for the Singaporean students are very good and therefore we have reason to suspect that a large number of "deserving" Singaporeans have been denied a place?

I also come from a faculty with a majority of foreign students. Of course la, they occupy the majority of the top places. They also occupy the majority of the bottom. Isn't that absolutely normal?

Absolutely not! The foreign students who are at the bottom ought to be shipped home and MOE ought to review the selection process for the foreign students! What normal are you talking about?

Bottom or top, I cannot say that they did not deserve their place.

Foreign students who do not perform better than average have no place at the local universities. Remember: we are not running a charity here.

Same with the locals.

Not the same lah. Locals who are not doing so great, but who can at least pass their classes, we can tolerate. :-P That's called the privilege of citizenship.

That said, perhaps you can tell us which faculty you are from and how many foreign students you have in your faculty. The KTM's understanding is that the MAJORITY of the foreign students and this is in the hundreds end up in Science and Engineering at NUS/NTU and the situation in those faculties is quite different.

The foreign students are better on average than the locals, though as the KTM has mentioned, there are also a few really weak student who flunk out. Some selection error is inevitable. Another thing that the KTM has heard is that locals who do badly tend to flunk out and give up in their first year. Foreign students who do badly on the other hand, don't have this option and so if you see only weak foreign students from the second year onwards, there may be a structural reason for it (and it may not necessarily mean that the bottom of the locals are better than the bottom of the foreign students).

Aiyah, somebody should just to and write to the Forum Page and ask for the stats from MOE. If it is indeed true that these foreign students do not prop by the standards of the local universities (i.e. if they are not better than the locals on average), then we should ship them home. Simple as that. If they serve a purpose, then perhaps people should just leave them alone?

What I really cannot buy is the notion that 'we need foreigners to prop up standards' ... I doubt the quality of the rejects are appalling enough that they pull down standards by their mere presence.

To each his own and the KTM suspects that it depends on which faculty you come from and talk to. :-)

I also think you overrate those scholars we send overseas, in any case, are you saying those 20% of university places would have been filled if not for our scholarship policies (and furthermore that our scholars would have filled up about 40-70% of certain courses)? Or are you saying our scholars are so great that we need those 20% of foreigners to make up for that x% loss? The distribution and numbers simply do not make sense.

Question: do you think that Singapore has been able to attract foreign students of quality commensurate with the local scholars that we are sending abroad? Two possibilities here:

(1) Yes. Then do you think that all 20% are equal in quality to the scholars (and non-scholars, let's not forget them) that we are losing to the foreign universities?

(2) No? Then of course you even need more foreign students to make up the numbers.

In any case, the KTM has not said anything about the 20% foreign students making up for the talent outflow exactly. You can never be exact anyway. Point is just that we have hollowed out our own universities and so it might be wise to patch the gap. If we overpatch, i.e. import more talent that we lost, is it a disaster?

Hi KTM,

So much written on this post that I cannot go through everything said. But I would like to say that your experiment at being an optician is quite hilarious. Made the point quite well.

I would say: just for informations, cant do no harm right? One of those trivia stuffs, u know. not like the info is very impt anyway.

Haiya...everyone is trying to look smart in their own ways, who doesnt. it would be interesting to know there are ppl who doesnt though. hrmmmmm....

anyway, yea, i dont understand the need to be so aggressive. being aggressive makes u feel lousy and bad, which can make life miserable. studying too much also make life miserable so getting into uni may not be the best decision.

frankly, i think cooking kway teow is one of the best job in sg becos u r ur own boss. if cant cook at this hawker centre, just switch to another one. so simple, no hassle. being a professional has so many liabilities and stressful environment-office politics and stuffs. even though the title sounds nice and pleasant, ultimately still an employee. still cant beat being a boss, right? ;)

aiya, everyone is entitled to their opinions and there are those who simply wont change. live and let live lor

ok. u have a good weekend :)

oh yea, thanks for the correction. yea, disdain is the right word ;)

cheers!

Bart,

Glad you liked the analogy. :-P

amatu,

I would say: just for informations, cant do no harm right? One of those trivia stuffs, u know. not like the info is very impt anyway.

Sounds good. Seriously, why don't you just try your proposed strategy and see how far you get with MOE? The KTM is too lazy to try this for himself, but he would be curious to see how obliging MOE is going to be to someone who wants to know how many students got 3 A's last year "just for information". :-)

Haiya...everyone is trying to look smart in their own ways, who doesnt. it would be interesting to know there are ppl who doesnt though. hrmmmmm....

Is that so? ;-P Hrmmmmm.....

anyway, yea, i dont understand the need to be so aggressive. being aggressive makes u feel lousy and bad, which can make life miserable.

Yeah, it's true that being aggressive can make one feel lousy and bad..... but who's being aggressive around here?? Are you confusing sarcastic with aggressive?

studying too much also make life miserable so getting into uni may not be the best decision.

True. True. Many would probably agree with you --- but still want to go to uni anyway. :-P

frankly, i think cooking kway teow is one of the best job in sg becos u r ur own boss. if cant cook at this hawker centre, just switch to another one. so simple, no hassle. being a professional has so many liabilities and stressful environment-office politics and stuffs. even though the title sounds nice and pleasant, ultimately still an employee. still cant beat being a boss, right? ;)

Absolutely lah. You've got this part right and the KTM wholeheartedly agrees with you. :-P You wanna learn to fry KT too?

aiya, everyone is entitled to their opinions and there are those who simply wont change.

Absolutely true again. Does it seem to you that the KTM is trying to change opinions here? Simple question: suppose someone is writing to persuade someone else to change his/her opinion, would that person write like Mr Wang or the KTM?

If the KTM is trying to persuade people to agree with him, then he must either be stupid, or cannot write, or perhaps both. :-P You are welcome to decide which is which lah.

live and let live lor

Agreed. That's a good policy, which is why the KTM DOES show restraint, believe it or not.

oh yea, thanks for the correction. yea, disdain is the right word ;)

You are most welcome.

ok. u have a good weekend :)

You too. Take care and have a good weekend. :-P

ChannelNewsAsia (July 19th, by Pearl Forss) lied when they said "Top universities in the world, such as MIT, have more than 40 percent foreign students". (Recall that their context was made to support the govt's stance on why our universities reserved 20% of the undergraduate seats for foreigners?)

MIT website stated clearly that "International citizens" comprises only 8% of the undergraduate student profile!!

jon:

CNA did get something wrong, but what you said is hardly complete.

1. The page you linked to is titled "Incoming Freshman Class Profile for the MIT class of 2010". Even if this is representative of the undergraduate population as a whole, we are still short of the graduate student population. As far as I know, the number of graduate students at MIT outnumber the undergraduates (about 6,000 vs. 4,000).

2. According to this MIT page entitled "International Students and Scholars", "there are 2,789 international students registered at MIT--381 undergraduates and 2,408 graduate students--for the current academic year." Total enrollment for the same your is give on this page as 4,127 for undergraduates, and 6,126 for graduate students. This allow us to calculate that the international enrollment is 9% for undergraduates and 39% for graduate students.

3. I don't know about lying per se but somebody (Pearl Forss, CNA editor, etc.) has been very careless. (Looks like someone might have confused two numbers...not good.)

4. There is something else that is more interesting, though perhaps less understandable to Singaporeans (because of our extreme smallness as a country). The page you linked to contains this chart re: the geographical origins of the incoming freshman class for 2010.

New England 13%
Mid-Atlantic 17%
Southeast & PR 16%
Midwest & Plains States 14%
South/Southwest 11%
West Coast 19%
New England 13%
Mid-Atlantic 17%
Southeast & PR 16%
Midwest & Plains States 14%
South/Southwest 11%
West Coast 19%
Abroad 10%

New England (= Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont), within which MIT is located, has a population of some 14+ million people (i.e., more than 3 times Singapore) and a land area 200 over times that of SIngapore. Yet MIT will only be drawing a paltry 13% of its 2010 incoming class from this bounty.

Just something to think about.

To be honest, I think in the end, it's really all about being able to respond to the changes in environment.

admission standards change, criteria to get a choice job change, tax rates change, etc etc etc.

it may sound really airy-fairy, but if you want something, make sure that you do everything possible to get it.

if for whatever reason (government/fate/luck), you don't get what u want, then deal with the rejection and move on to next best.

no chance to get uni degree? how about a poly diploma?

Maybe you won't earn as much at the start, but in the long run, if you're good, you're good; real stuff cannot bluff.

i think the problem is that too many singaporeans sit back and expect the government to be the cure to all their problems. Often, the government (correctly or incorrectly) does do something to help - take the GST package for example (OT:we didn't hear people who got more complaining about why they got more than those who got less, now did we?)

But when the govt doesn't do something to help, (and much of the time, rightly so) people take up arms and grab hold of whatever's convenient to wave around in the air in protest. In this case, it's just that it happened to be the foreign students. But if it wasnt the foreign students, it would be something else, im sure.

I think people have to learn to take their own fates into their hands and posting comments, especially anonymous ones, on another's blog doesnt count.

See you on the playing field, cos that's where I'm going.

Huichieh,

New England (= Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont), within which MIT is located, has a population of some 14+ million people (i.e., more than 3 times Singapore) and a land area 200 over times that of SIngapore. Yet MIT will only be drawing a paltry 13% of its 2010 incoming class from this bounty.

Just something to think about.

So? What are you trying to suggest?

Here's something for you to think about. Taken from http://metrics.vcbf.berkeley.edu/, here are the figures for the breakdown of undergraduate figures into resident vs nonresident for 2004-2005.

% resident % nonresident

UC Berkeley 89.0 11.0
Harvard 15.0 85.0
Illinois Urbana 93.0 7.0
Michigan 68.0 32.0
MIT 10.0 90.0
Princeton 15.0 85.0
Stanford 47.0 53.0
UCLA 96.0 4.0
UCSD 97.0 3.0
UT Austin 95.0 5.0
Virginia 71.0 29.0
Wisconsin 69.0 31.0
Yale 8.0 92.0

(Methodology: Percentage of in-state and out-of-state resident Undergraduate students. International students are included in non-resident. Data was obtained from US News and World Report.)

Taken from http://metrics.vcbf.berkeley.edu/calstats.pdf, it is stated that in 2006, 90 percent of Berkeley's undergraduates are residents of California and 7 percent of the freshmen class have home locations outside of California.

90 percent of Berkeley's undergraduates are residents of California and 7 percent of the freshmen class have home locations outside of California.

That's right, California, population 33.9 million (nearly 8 x Singapore; land area 580+ x Singapore).

Now draw a circle with it's center at the Campanile (a landmark on the UCB Campus, in case you don't know) such that the number of people living within the circle is roughly that of Singapore. The real question is not what % of UCB's students come from CA (that's too easy), but what % comes from within that circle!

To make things easy, I'll just assume the San Francisco Bay Area as UCB's immediate environs. We are talking about the following counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa , San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano and Sonoma. Total population, just under 7 million.

And let's focus more specifically on the Fall 06 (Fall rather than Spring because that's the more 'normal' intake) intake figures, by source county (available here).

Of the total intake of 5449 undergraduate freshmen in Fall 2006, a grand 2346 reports a source county within the Bay Area. 43%. The University of California, Berkeley, took in a grand total of 43% of its Fall 06 Undergraduate intake from a population pool size that is one and a half times that of Singapore.

Don't get me wrong: my point has little to do with arbitrary political boundaries be it federal or national but everything to do with the size of the intake pool from which these universities are able to draw. One (though not the only, but definitely one) of the reasons why the universities in your list are top universities has to do with the fact that they are able to take students from pools the size of which NUS/NTU can only dream about. And they best part is that they don't even have to do this by taking in "international students"--(for UCB) just have them come from LA. (As a footnote, LA county--population 9.7 million, supplied 24% of the Fall 06 intake.)

Being an extremely small country, we have no such luxury--if NUS/NTU wants to compete at the highest international levels, it has to draw from a larger pool, and the only way is to enroll international students.

More anecdotally: once, after a semester's teaching at UCB, my Prof and Teaching Assistants (among whom was I) were looking through the collated grades, etc. when he (my Prof) commented that a large proportion of the class obviously consists of immigrants and quite likely first or second generation--it showed in the names...

I don't have time to dig up the relevant statistics but this additional complication needs to be taken into account. Even that 43% of the Fall '06 intake from the Bay Area are not all literally from the Bay Area: there is a good chance that a significant number are FOBs--"fresh off the boat"--from China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Eastern Europe, and so on. This means that the intake pool for Fall '06 is even larger than suggested by the figures in the previous comment.

-if NUS/NTU wants to compete at the highest international levels, it has to draw from a larger pool, and the only way is to enroll international students.

1. How does enrolling international undergraduate students enable NUS/NTU compete at the highest international levels? Note the emphasis on 'undergraduate'.

2. Obviously, although Berkeley draws from a larger source of students than NUS/NTU, it draws from a considerably smaller source than MIT. Yet, the ability to compete is not obviously significant.

3. If we include UCLA, Berkeley, UCSD, UCSB, UC Irvine, UC Riverside, i.e. ALL the UC's, all of which have very high percentages of resident undergraduate students, then the pool of students per university is much smaller. Yet, there exists considerable grounds to say that most if not all of the UC's are more competitive than NUS/NTU.

I'll do it in reverse.

3. Been thinking about that even as I click on "post" for the last comment--if only there is a way to calculate some sort of "density index" that takes into account the total enrollment of all of the 'worth comparing' universities within an area vs. the resident intake pool.

Note first of all that it's not the number of colleges that matter but their total enrollment. According to the wikipedia, the UC system has an undergraduate enrollment of approx 159,000. NUS/NTU/SMU is in the 47,000 range. Even if all of the UC students come from within CA, we are still taking about 159,000 from a population of 33 million (.5%) as opposed to 47,000 from 4.3 million (1%--i.e., half as 'selective'). But this is too rough since we need to take into account Stanford, USC, the Cal State system, etc., etc. My hunch is that at the end of the day, the intake pool taking into account "density" will still be a lot higher from the top Californian universities compared to NUS/NTU, but I'll grant you that more digging is needed.

2. That's right--that's the difference between a private college and a state school. But (granting my hunch above), the pool for Berkeley is still magnitudes larger than NUS/NTU, even as it is also much smaller than MIT.

1. But I am talking about NUS/NTU as internationally competitive undergraduate institutions. (Not factoring in graduate school yet.) I think most would agree that places such as UC Berkeley, UCLA, MIT, etc., are good universities, including good universities at the undergraduate degrees level. A BA, BSc, etc., is 'worth lots' from these places. Holders of such degrees are more sought after than others. And so on.

The question is: what are the conditions necessary for pushing NUS/NTU further in exactly that area. (I'm assuming that it is desirable to do such a thing--not necessarily a non-controversial assumption.) Over and above everything else (e.g., re: faculty, facilities, etc., etc.) there is also the issue of the quality of the intake. Note: the quality of the intake is not the only determinant, but I am only saying that it is one important condition among others.

And this is one factor (among others, no doubt), that the top international universities are able to beat NUS/NTU/SMU. Not because the 'Average American' is necessarily smarter, but because, for instance, the top US universities are able to draw from much larger intake pools (and that without having to cross international boundaries).

All things being equal, the top 5,000 students from a pool of 4,000,000 will nonetheless, in general, be not as good as the top 5,000 students from a pool of 33,000,000. But there aren't 33,000,000 Singaporeans... Sooner or later, the intake pool has to extend beyond Singapore IF we want to up the quality of the intake.

But I must emphasize: this is only one factor among many. And the aim is not to simply increase the international enrollment (what's the point?) but to increase the intake pool so as to be able to up the quality of the intake. It is entirely possible to mess up the implementation.

1. But I am talking about NUS/NTU as internationally competitive undergraduate institutions. (Not factoring in graduate school yet.) I think most would agree that places such as UC Berkeley, UCLA, MIT, etc., are good universities, including good universities at the undergraduate degrees level. A BA, BSc, etc., is 'worth lots' from these places. Holders of such degrees are more sought after than others. And so on.

The question is: what are the conditions necessary for pushing NUS/NTU further in exactly that area. (I'm assuming that it is desirable to do such a thing--not necessarily a non-controversial assumption.) Over and above everything else (e.g., re: faculty, facilities, etc., etc.) there is also the issue of the quality of the intake. Note: the quality of the intake is not the only determinant, but I am only saying that it is one important condition among others.

If I may interpret what you've just said, are you claiming that, controlling for everything else (faculty, facilities, degree course, class of honours, etc), the value of an undergraduate degree is also dependent on the selectivity of the undergraduate cohort?

I find that assertion highly contestable, at least in Singapore when it comes to the employment of fresh graduates.

Note first of all that it's not the number of colleges that matter but their total enrollment. According to the wikipedia, the UC system has an undergraduate enrollment of approx 159,000. NUS/NTU/SMU is in the 47,000 range. Even if all of the UC students come from within CA, we are still taking about 159,000 from a population of 33 million (.5%) as opposed to 47,000 from 4.3 million (1%--i.e., half as 'selective'). But this is too rough since we need to take into account Stanford, USC, the Cal State system, etc., etc. My hunch is that at the end of the day, the intake pool taking into account "density" will still be a lot higher from the top Californian universities compared to NUS/NTU, but I'll grant you that more digging is needed.

You fail to mention that a bright Californian high school leaver with a good SAT score has a decent chance of getting a scholarship/financial aid to study in another university in another state. So, the UCs face much more competition for their undergraduate intake.

In contrast, due to prohibitive cost of tuition fees of overseas universities, NUS, NTU and SMU, by default, get the bright ones who do not have the financial resources (family or scholarships) to go overseas.

If I may interpret what you've just said, are you claiming that, controlling for everything else (faculty, facilities, degree course, class of honours, etc), the value of an undergraduate degree is also dependent on the selectivity of the undergraduate cohort? I find that assertion highly contestable, at least in Singapore when it comes to the employment of fresh graduates.

Yes, that's my belief. But it won't be a straightforward connection though (since the whole thing will be routing through such vague stuff as university reputation), and it will take time for any changes to make a real impact. Any reasons why you think this is problematic?

You fail to mention that a bright Californian high school leaver with a good SAT score has a decent chance of getting a scholarship/financial aid to study in another university in another state. So, the UCs face much more competition for their undergraduate intake. In contrast, due to prohibitive cost of tuition fees of overseas universities, NUS, NTU and SMU, by default, get the bright ones who do not have the financial resources (family or scholarships) to go overseas.

True enough, which is why the numbers are all at best ball park and not totally conclusive. (That elusive "density index"!)

What you are saying also points to another factor that interests me as well: competition among the schools. It's much easier for NUS/NTU/SMU to be complacent when they only have each other to compete with for the main chunk of the students.

But is that true anymore? I do get the impression that the 'bright ones' are increasingly going overseas. They are the ones strongly targeted by scholarship givers. Nowadays, the resourceful ones go on alternative arrangements without bonded scholarships. This suggests that NUS/NTU/SMU no longer have as much lock in power as they used to have (not to mention the increasing attractiveness of a poly diploma). Wouldn't all this point to at least the possibility that, just to maintain quality, the local Unis have to increase the intake pool beyond our borders eventually? But I don't know--more data is needed.

Yes, that's my belief. But it won't be a straightforward connection though (since the whole thing will be routing through such vague stuff as university reputation), and it will take time for any changes to make a real impact. Any reasons why you think this is problematic?

It is quite easy to test that belief of yours. Take course X which is offered in NUS and NTU. Your belief predicts that, if the admission is more competitive for course X in NUS(NTU) than for course X in NTU(NUS), then the graduates from course X in NUS(NTU) should have higher starting salaries and/or employment rates than graduates from course X in NTU(NUS).

Let us examine the evidence.

Let X = electrical/mechanical/civil engineering. Let us examine the graduate cohort of 2003 (which corresponds to the intake for 1999).

It is well-known that admission to NUS engineering courses used to be more significantly competitive than admission to NTU engineering courses, at least back in 1999. Yet, if you look at the employment survey figures here for the cohort that graduated in 2003, starting salaries for NUS electrical/mechanical/civil engineering graduates are about the same as their NTU counterparts. Also, the employment rates do not differ significantly.

Clearly, the numbers suggest that selectivity is not a strong factor in the 'worth' of the degree, at least in terms of starting salaries and employment rate.

Fox,

You are going in circles and KTM is getting quite confused.

You fail to mention that a bright Californian high school leaver with a good SAT score has a decent chance of getting a scholarship/financial aid to study in another university in another state. So, the UCs face much more competition for their undergraduate intake.

You fail to realize that local students have significantly greater access to (full) scholarships (on a per capita basis) than your Californian high school students.

Your example of NUS vs NTU engineering is misleading for two reasons: (i) The cohorts are so humongous, the supposedly difference in selectivity between the two is probably not statistically significant; (ii) employment rates are a function of the economy. Let's consider another example: compare an electrical engineering student from NUS/NTU versus one from MIT. Which do you think has a higher employment probability and starting salary? This is a rhetorical question by the way. Clearly the selectivity of a school matters.

Let's cut to the chase:

Are you saying that it is bad for Singapore to take in foreign students? If so, is it because (i) you believe that they are denying the Singaporeans a place in university, or (ii) we are "wasting" money on them 'cos they aren't worth what we're investing in them in terms of scholarships, or (iii) something else? Are you saying that we are taking in too many foreign students, because yada yada....

Let's keep life simple: just make your point and substantiate the point you're trying to make can?

Your example of NUS vs NTU engineering is misleading for two reasons: (i) The cohorts are so humongous, the supposedly difference in selectivity between the two is probably not statistically significant;

Not that I have heard of. NUS engineering was significantly more selective than NTU.

(ii) employment rates are a function of the economy.

But I was comparing people who graduated at the same time, in the same disciplines, etc.

Let's consider another example: compare an electrical engineering student from NUS/NTU versus one from MIT. Which do you think has a higher employment probability and starting salary? This is a rhetorical question by the way. Clearly the selectivity of a school matters.

Not really. I don't deny that selectivity is correlated with starting pay but you are equating correlation with causation.

Let's keep life simple: just make your point and substantiate the point you're trying to make can?

I am trying to pinpoint the exact educational/academic/economic benefits to our local universities, of bringing in, at the taxpayers' expense, very very large number of international undergraduate students.

For the record, I don't deny any of the following:
1. international undergraduate students are, on average, significantly more intelligent and capable of handling their undergraduate studies.
2. increasing local enrollment naturally results in the enrollment of more weak students.

However, I do not see any significant educational benefits of bringing in large number of international undergraduate students at taxpayers' expense. There has been no justification, in terms of educational benefits, presented here. The justification for bringing them in cannot be educational and that's the point I wish to make and press home.

Fox,

Thanks for your clarification.

Not really. I don't deny that selectivity is correlated with starting pay but you are equating correlation with causation.

Let's get it straight. First, the attempt to show causation between selectivity and employment rates and starting pay was YOUR idea. Merely trying to demonstrate the fallacy in your reasoning. The KTM wouldn't have chosen the example you chose if he tried to prove the same point. But we digress.

I do not see any significant educational benefits of bringing in large number of international undergraduate students at taxpayers' expense.

You have just said it, the foreign students are smarter on average and it brings up the standard of the students/university. Is that not an educational benefit?

The justification for bringing them in cannot be educational and that's the point I wish to make and press home.

Whoever said anything to the effect that we import these fellas solely for educational reasons?? Anybody who believes such a statement must be living in dunno which jungle. In case people don't know, the first law of Singapore is "Economics is King".

Clearly given the cost of importing these fellas, it's not only about improving the quality of our local tertiary institutions, but a matter of making available to the labour pool better candidates. Perhaps not so good for (some) Singaporeans, but definitely good for employers.

But this discussion on the benefits of importing foreign students is totally tangential to the question that this article was exploring and that's the question of whether there are sufficient university places for Singaporean students. Given that the Government has said in no uncertain terms that the quotas and admission of the foreign students are separate from the locals, it is important to avoid muddling the two issues.

Simply put, given the Government's stand, the implication is that even if we get rid of all the foreign students, their places will not go to the locals.

Sorry KTM--you're right, this is not completely relevant to the point of your post. I'll just add this and call it quits.

Fox:

Your belief predicts that, if the admission is more competitive for course X in NUS(NTU) than for course X in NTU(NUS), then the graduates from course X in NUS(NTU) should have higher starting salaries and/or employment rates than graduates from course X in NTU(NUS).

No it doesn't--it can only predict that ceteris paribus--"with other things [being] the same"--the graduates from X will be more competitive. But I seriously doubt that other things are the same. (In fact, I'm not even convinced that "engineering in NTU" is, in terms of what it offers as training, the same as "engineering in NUS". I thought that the latter is supposed to be more theoretically oriented and the former more practically oriented? At least that's what engineering friends like to tell me.)

Furthermore, as KTM alluded, the difference in selectivity between MIT engineering and NUS/NTU engineering is very likely several magnitudes above the difference in selectivity between NUS and NTU engineering.

In any case, since you don't deny that selectivity is correlated with "starting pay"--presumably, that being proxy for "desirability or worth of the degree", I'm not going to press this issue.

I should, again, emphasize that selectivity is not some sort of master key. It is only one of many conditions that must be fulfilled. Worse still, it is not even an independent condition. (Chicken and egg: better students want to go where the better teachers are, but the better teachers also want to go where the better students are...) In addition, as I've pointed out, any effect upon the desirability of the degree from the school suffers from time-lag. I doubt that a sudden change in selectivity and every other relevant factor (unless very drastic) will make a lot of difference in the short run--usually, it takes time for reputations to build or for long lasting impressions from the past to change.

Ok, I'm done. (Do feel free to have the last word though.)

KTM,

Thank you for your reply.

Let's get it straight. First, the attempt to show causation between selectivity and employment rates and starting pay was YOUR idea. Merely trying to demonstrate the fallacy in your reasoning.

No. I was trying to show that there is no strong correlation between selectivity and starting pay for local university graduates in Singapore. In others words, hypothetically, if we decrease the foreign student population and hence, selectivity, there wouldn't be a corresponding decrease in starting pay or employment. The comparison between the local university graduate and the MIT gradate is not apt.

Perhaps I was not clear on what I intended to prove with my example.

You have just said it, the foreign students are smarter on average and it brings up the standard of the students/university. Is that not an educational benefit?

No more than if I were to start admitting healthy people into hospitals and then start claiming that there are medical benefits to the non-healthy patients.

Clearly given the cost of importing these fellas, it's not only about improving the quality of our local tertiary institutions, but a matter of making available to the labour pool better candidates.

Thank you.

The point I am trying to make here is that the benefits to our universities and the local students as a result of importing large number of foreign undergraduate students is at best marginal.

Implicit somewhere in Huichieh's argument for selectivity is the assumption that intrinsic 'worth' of our local universities' degrees will decrease appreciably if we do not import smarter foreign undergraduate students and continue to increase our local intake. Or, in the original article, there is some kind of educational/economic harm to our local students.

These two assumptions are clearly disputable. Well, at the very least, I have not seen any persuasive arguments presented here or anywhere.

Fox,

I was trying to show that there is no strong correlation between selectivity and starting pay for local university graduates in Singapore.

You may be right, but not sure what this proves even if you are right. Selectivity is commonly accepted as a proxy for the quality of the students and the quality of students is one measure of the "goodness" of a university. Are you suggesting that the starting pay of local graduates is also a measure of the goodness of a local university (compared with each other)?

Certainly cannot be right? The starting pay probably depends more on the class of honours rather than the school and the aggregate numbers you see in the press tell us nothing. Also, a lot depends on the economy and the profession. Law graduates for example are supposedly paid more.

If you are trying to "pinpoint the exact educational/academic/economic benefits to our local universities", this approach seems to be barking up the wrong tree.

No more than if I were to start admitting healthy people into hospitals and then start claiming that there are medical benefits to the non-healthy patients.

Good one. :-) Depends on whether one likes to go to school with smarter people or dumber people. Agree with you that the tangible benefits to the local students are not obvious unless you count increased competition as a benefit.

But, do take a step back and ask yourself if a university is better off with more smarter students walking around. Imagine, would you be better off or happier if all your current schoolmates are idiots? Not trying to imply that local students are idiots. This is just a thought experiment. :-)

KTM,

You may be right, but not sure what this proves even if you are right. Selectivity is commonly accepted as a proxy for the quality of the students and the quality of students is one measure of the "goodness" of a university.

Not really.

Universities that are good (in terms of reputation, research, tradition, worth of degree, etc) usually have more applicants. Hence, they can afford to be more selective. Hence, the average quality of students is better. However, this doesn't mean that once we increase the number of applicants (by offering more scholarships and subsidies), the university will be good.

If you do not see that point, think of it this way.

Do you know that price is commonly accepted as a proxy for the quality of a product? Hence, if we raise the price of that product, will its quality improve?

Are you suggesting that the starting pay of local graduates is also a measure of the goodness of a local university (compared with each other)?

Huichieh is the one who suggested that the value or worth of the degree improves (in some vague way) with the selectivity of the undergraduate intake, ceteris paribus, not I.

Certainly cannot be right? The starting pay probably depends more on the class of honours rather than the school and the aggregate numbers you see in the press tell us nothing. Also, a lot depends on the economy and the profession. Law graduates for example are supposedly paid more.

That's why I gave the 2003 employment figures and average starting salaries for electrical/mechanical/civil engineering for NUS and NTU. That's probably as close to ceteris paribus as we can get. The numbers suggest that controlling for degree course and the economy, selectivity seems not to be a significant factor. NTU engineering in 1999 was a dumping ground whereas NUS engineering was taking in people with better grounds.

But, do take a step back and ask yourself if a university is better off with more smarter students walking around. Imagine, would you be better off or happier if all your current schoolmates are idiots? Not trying to imply that local students are idiots. This is just a thought experiment. :-)

Of course, I would be happier if there were more smarter people - undergraduates, graduates and faculty - around in university.

But just having smarter undergraduates around only makes things marginally better. Undergraduates in our local universities are much much better off than their counterparts 5 or 10 years ago and the large population of international undergraduate students is not a major factor in this improvement.

(Still at it?...)

Fox:

Implicit somewhere in Huichieh's argument for selectivity is the assumption that intrinsic 'worth' of our local universities' degrees will decrease appreciably if we do not import smarter foreign undergraduate students and continue to increase our local intake.

No, my point is not that we will definitely and sharply go downhill, etc., but that there is a limit to how much we can go further and become better than we already are without, at some point, increasing selectivity, and given the small population size of Singapore, it seems unlikely that we can do that indefinitely without, at some point, increasing the international enrollment.

Incidentally, I said in an earlier comment [July 27, 2007 1:07 AM] that whether or not we should be pushing to go further--given the consequences--is not necessarily a "non-controversial" thing at all. There is a cost to pay. In fact, one of the members of the IAAP--the very international body that recommended to NUS/NTU that they increase their international enrollment as part of an overall move to take the universities to the next stage--went as far as to say, "It is not possible to educate a large portion of a country's university's cohort and at the same time become world-class in a narrowly-defined sense." (cited in Christine Han, "Singapore: Review of Educational Events in 1998", Asia Pacific Journal of Education 19.2 (1999), 112).

Something else: as I emphasize above, the various factors are not independent of each other. Even granted that we can't improve the reputation and desirability of the degree without increasing the selectivity of the intake (my contention), it won't follow that we can directly do the former by doing the latter. As I said before [July 27, 2007 9:23 AM], the whole thing will be routing through such vague stuff as university reputation, and it will take time for any changes to make a real impact.

From the public's point of view (including the employers), the degree is information. Like a brand or tradesmark, a degree from specific universities are supposed to 'guarantee' a certain probability of a certain level of quality. It is reputation.

Now how that quality is actually engendered is not necessarily transparent to the receiving public (though they need not stop it from having opinions, including erroneous ones). [For instance, the public might believe that Harvard graduates are such smart people because they come from Harvard, while it might just as well be the case that they got into Harvard because they are smart in the first place (that is, for all we know, Harvard's value add is not in making them smarter, but in 'certifying' that they are smart).]

The problem is that reputation is not usually made or broken overnight. And the public (and employers) need not see the changes to selectivity, or faculty quality, or facilities, etc.--nor are they usually in a good position to. They see the end result. That is, they work on the basis of historical information about how people who previously come with the same degree-brand-tradesmark worked out in the end, e.g., how they actually perform at the job. For instance, a MIT-degree has the reputation it has not because it's present selectivity is whatever, but because its graduates have a track record, which is itself because of the fact that MIT has a history of high selectivity, faculty quality, etc., etc.

If I am right about the above, time slice comparisons are not going to be conclusive. Even if it is the case that in 2003, NTU and NUS engineering are very different in selectivity, I seriously doubt that it will make a big difference to the value of their degree when they graduate--since the perceived value of their degree (i.e., the reputation of the conferring university) is in large part a function of history--how previous batches of degree holders do in real life (which is itself a function of past selectivity, faculty quality, etc.). And as far as that longer view is concern, NUS/NTU engine seems, from my lay point of view, quite comparable except at the margins.

(This is even assuming all things else are equal, something I am not confident of. My impression has always been that the two courses have a reputation of having different emphases.)

But if either university has a known history of drastically different selectivity (all things else being equal), then my contention is that they will have a different reputation. This is because everything else being equal, the graduates from one university are going to be smarter, more hardworking, whatever, and those qualities will impact how they do in the longer term, and so on, and sooner or later, employers are going to catch on.

(more later)

Fox,

Huichieh is the one who suggested that the value or worth of the degree improves (in some vague way) with the selectivity of the undergraduate intake, ceteris paribus, not I.

My apologies then. This discussion is quite unstructured and has becoming quite confusing. The KTM can no longer keep track of who said what. :-(

The KTM is however very interested in understanding your pov on university education in Singapore. Would you mind taking some time to formulate your thoughts into something concise (yet detailed) and submit to SA as a guest contribution and we take the discussion from there?

Just one final question for your consideration. You said, "But just having smarter undergraduates around only makes things marginally better." So it seems that you are not disputing that have more smart foreign students does make it better. Your point is that the improvement is only marginal. Fair enough. Question: how did you quantify the improvement to conclude that it's only marginal?

Thanks again for your comments. :-P

Huichieh,

We better leave the argument as it is. I don't see the point of continuing. However, there is one point that I wish to address.

From the public's point of view (including the employers), the degree is information. Like a brand or tradesmark, a degree from specific universities are supposed to 'guarantee' a certain probability of a certain level of quality. It is reputation.

The argument would only work if the degree is the only information. However, nationality is another source of information. If employers are aware that there is some kind of affirmative action for locals, they would be able to discriminate between the high-achieving nonlocals and the not-so-high-achieving locals. It is unlikely that employers will not be able to tell the nationality of their hires. Hence, it will be quite difficult for the locals to piggyback on the improved reputation created the better nonlocals.

If you cannot see the point, imagine this: suppose the law faculty takes in better students, does this imply that the reputation of the degrees of real estate management graduates will be enhanced? Of course not. Employers will able to discriminate on the basis of the faculty. In the case of boosting the reputation of our locals universities with a large foreign intake, employers can tell that it is the already better nonlocals who are pulling more than their share of the weight.

In any case, using nonlocals to boost the reputation and employability of the local graduates is a rather wasteful and roundabout way of doing so. After all, one to two hundred million dollars per annum is spent to persuade these people to come. Surely, there are more cost-effective ways of achieving that end.

To put it bluntly, you seem to be suggesting that the nonlocals are here to do some false advertising about the value of local graduates. Perhaps, universities should look into actually making genuine improvements to the graduates - locals and/or nonlocals - they churn out to raise the worth of their degrees. And, just maybe, it is such value-addition that might enable our universities to be more selective without resorting to unnecessary generosity at the expense of Singaporean taxpayers.

Fox

I'm not sure I disagree with what you are saying. At least not everything.

To repeat what I have been arguing for all along: all things being equal, NUS/NTU cannot indefinitely seek to improve the value of their offered undergraduate degrees, without, at some point, increasing selectivity; and given our small population, they won't be able to that indefinitely without having a larger international enrollment (I should add: that is, without at the same time decreasing the intake numbers).

Again, I must emphasize: this is an "all things being equal" claim. It cannot be used to suggest that there is nothing left to improve in so many other areas--faculty quality, facilities, procedures, management, so many areas. There are lots to improve in those areas. (In fact, improvements in those areas are much more closer to my heart as an instructor. 'Selectivity' is for the 'people upstairs' to worry about.)

But whether or not what I've been saying translates into the specific education policies that are actually being undertaken in the local universities is an entirely open question. As I mentioned earlier [July 27, 2007 1:07 AM], "it is entirely possible to mess up the implementation." (I'm not saying that the good 'people upstairs' are messing it up, but I'm not arguing that they didn't either. For me, the jury is still out.)

Ok, back to your contentions. You are absolutely right: if there is a significant gap between the quality of the international intake vs. the local intake, sooner or later (given time lag and all that), people are going to catch on to the fact that there is some affirmative action going on. Note that they don't even need to know that such is going on--they will eventually observe the outcome and react accordingly. But what I've been arguing for does not entail any affirmative action. If anything, it just as well suggests that the universities should raise the bar across the board. (The social cost of doing so is another, very important matter, altogether.)

(What follows does not disagree with your point as much as it attempts to sharpen it.) Note, the degree is not an undifferentiated, all or nothing piece of information. There are rank differences in the degrees (pass, pass with merit, classes of honors, etc.). Assuming that the international intake is 'better' than the local on average), then all things being equal, what's going to happen is that the internationals are going to end up at with the better results on average (anecdotally, that's been happening in specific courses; though not the ones I teach, so far). Any 'discrimination' in hiring will most likely not be on the basis of "local vs. international" but on the basis of the class of honors and such like. (This is not to say that discrimination along the local vs. international level can't or won't happen, only that if they do, it won't be for the reason given.) In other words, affirmative action at the intake stage, when combined with the lack of affirmative action when giving out grades will ironically cancel out any 'false advertising'. Again, all things being equal.

But all this is really a sidenote: as I said above, what I've been arguing for is not meant to entail any affirmative action.

The basis and need for education?
Having better grade meaning all?
Understand and I believe it would have answer most of the thoughts.
Does most Singaporean do better when they are overseas?