 |
The author and her articles can be found at the blog "The Rot Within". The reader is reminded that all opinions expressed in this article are expressed by the author alone and remain the sole responsibility of the author.
Time and again, we are told that A*Star's scholarship schemes serve to nurture a base of scientific talent for local research institutes. We should make clear, however, what kind of talent we are seeking to nurture. The lack of jobs for bachelor's degree holders in the life sciences indicates that Singapore is not short of people with bachelor's degrees in the life sciences. What we are short of are scientists with PhDs. Obviously, though, we don't want just any PhD-holders; we want good ones. The relevant question to ask, then, is to what extent A*Star's scholarship schemes help to build up a base of worthy PhD-bearing scientists, and whether we could not build up that base in other more cost-effective ways. I argue that it is not at all clear that A*Star's scholarships serve the first aim, and that it is almost certainly the case that alternative policies could build up our base of good PhD-bearing scientists in far more cost-efficient ways than the current scholarship schemes.
Before I outline my criticisms, it is worthwhile to note one laudable aspect of A*Star's scholarship schemes. That is their A*Star Graduate Scholarship (AGS) scheme. Under this scheme, promising scientists are selected after their undergraduate studies for a PhD in a local university, often conducting research in an A*Star research institute as part of their fulfillment of the PhD requirements. This essentially allows local universities to take in more PhD students than they could otherwise afford to, and can be seen as an indirect transfer of tax revenue to local universities. At the same time, both A*Star and the universities benefit from the research done by such students. Graduate students are the lifeblood of scientific research, and any extra funding to increase this stream of lifeblood is always welcome. The money goes into improving local institutions while adding to the pool of PhD-level talent. Furthermore, applicants are assessed only after their undergraduate studies, so there is less of a question mark over their potential as future scientists.
The situation is quite different for A*Star's other scholarship schemes. Consider the NSS-BS scheme. Under this scheme, A*Star selects promising JC students for a three-year undergraduate education at a top overseas university. If, at the end of those three years, these students meet the bare requirement of a cumulative GPA of at least 3.8 or first-class honours, they are awarded the NSS-PhD scholarship. NSS-PhD scholars are funded for five years maximum to get their PhDs at top overseas universities.
My criticism of the NSS-BS scheme is simply that it is a poor way of recognising potentially good scientists. There is not a single graduate school in the world that selects which students to fund by looking at their high school results. Yet this, in effect, is what A*Star does. Graduate schools prefer to look at students' undergraduate records to make their decision on whether they are worthy of funding for graduate school; high school records are not even glanced at. Yet the way that the NSS-BS scheme is set up, anyone with good enough high school results need only get a cumulative GPA of 3.8 or first-class honours to be given funding for PhD training at a top graduate school.
There are several objections one might raise to my criticism. One is that the requirement of a cumulative GPA of 3.8 or first-class honours is sufficient to filter out the 'undeserving' NSS-BS scholars. But the percentage of students awarded first-class honours is as high as 25% in some top UK universities 1, and we would hardly think that one-quarter of students in all those universities deserve full funding for their PhD studies. In other words, 'first-class honours' is not an informative enough label to separate the wheat from the chaff. In addition, no graduate school uses degree classification or GPA alone as the yardstick with which they measure applicants for PhD funding. In fact, the prevailing sentiment on the ground in US graduate schools is that undergraduate research experience is a far more important factor. Someone who did outstanding undergraduate research, which (for example) culminated in a publication in a good journal, would catch the attention of admissions committees even if her GPA was only (say) 3.5. Someone with a GPA of 4.0 but no record at all of undergraduate research is likely to be looked at askance. After all, graduate schools are looking for researchers, not exam-acers. To quote a professor from my undergraduate institution: "If there is one thing [on your CV] you MUST have, it's research. Everything else is optional." The NSS-BS scholarship essentially allows students with excellent JC results and decent (not necessarily outstanding) undergraduate grades to get a 'free' PhD at a top graduate school. But the vast majority of applicants to top graduate schools have excellent high school results and excellent (not just decent) undergraduate grades, and a significant proportion of them will have, in addition to those, good track records in undergraduate research. Graduate schools distinguish between all these good candidates by factors other than grades. A*Star's 'filter' for PhD scholars in the NSS-BS(+PhD) scheme is, in comparison, pathetic.
Another objection one might raise to my criticism is that even if the NSS-BS(+PhD) scholarship is less selective than top graduate schools in picking future scientists, that doesn't mean that it isn't justified in its selection of future scientists. It could well be that there is such a glut of talented people who want to go to graduate school that even if one ends up selecting some less than outstanding individuals, said individuals are still worth the investment. To this objection, I would like to apply my second broad criticism of A*Star's scholarship schemes: We could get such scientific talent through far cheaper ways than by giving out overseas scholarships.
Consider how expensive it is to fully fund a standard PhD education in the US (I will concentrate on the US because most A*Star scholars do their PhDs there). Let's say tuition and living costs add up to a reasonable US$50,000 a year --- US$33,000 worth of tuition and US$17,000 worth of subsistence stipends are pretty typical figures for good graduate schools. Since A*Star gives its PhD scholars five years to complete their degree (and most are unable to finish it sooner than that), that comes to about US$250,000.
Now consider my cartoon alternative scenario. The alternative scenario is that A*Star does not give out overseas PhD scholarships. Instead, those who are interested in becoming scientists have to apply to graduate school by themselves and acquire funding from the graduate school (in the US, such funding usually comes automatically with admission). After these budding scientists complete their PhD, A*Star lures them back to Singapore with the carrot of a significantly higher pay than what they would get as post-docs in the US. For this alternative scheme to be more worthwhile than the current PhD scheme, all it would take is for A*Star to offer a pay differential (added up over the years of service) of less than US$250,000 over competing offers that the PhD-holder would get in the US.2 Since, under the current scheme, the PhD scholar would have to serve a 4-year bond, this amounts to offering a post-doc position that pays roughly US$60,000 a year more than competing offers in the US. Whatever you may think of the comparative desirability of living conditions, cultural factors, and so on in the US and Singapore, it is hard to deny the attraction of a pay increment of US$60,000 a year. It is a reasonable postulate that if we really want Singaporean scientists to return from their overseas PhDs to 'serve' Singapore, this US$250,000 carrot (or even a significantly smaller one of say, US$100,000) would go a long way towards doing that.
In fact, I would make the stronger claim that the alternative scenario has a major advantage over the current scenario. That is because in deciding whether to hire a post-doc, it only makes sense to look at candidates' records in graduate school. However, the NSS PhD scholarship scheme simply does not do that --- it commits taxpayers to shelling out for the salaries of post-docs before those post-docs have even started their PhD studies. But just as it is unwise to judge a potential graduate student by her high school CV, it is unwise to judge a potential post-doc by her undergraduate CV.
Once again, I will address possible objections to my postulated alternative scenario. One objection is that the NSS PhD scholarships support PhD students who would otherwise not do their PhD at a top overseas university. So the NSS PhD scholarship is creating extra PhDs for A*Star, PhDs who would otherwise not be available for A*Star to hire.
But if the NSS PhD scheme is indeed supporting students who would otherwise not be acquiring a PhD at a top overseas university, this raises serious questions as to why we are supporting such students. There are two plausible reasons for these students not doing a PhD if not for A*Star's intervention. The first is that they would have been unable to gain admission to a top graduate school if they had not had A*Star's financial support --- universities are more cavalier about admitting students that they do not have to shell out a single cent for. In that case, I would say that these students are not worthy of A*Star's financial support. There are any number of better students, many of whom are Singaporeans, who gained entry into top graduate schools without external financial backing. Why should we shell out for 'lesser' students when we could use the money that would fund these 'lesser' students to snag the better students after they earn their PhD? Of course, some of these students might turn out to be better scientists than those who got into graduate school without external financial backing. But why should we be so convinced of the potential of these 'lesser' students even before they've commenced their graduate studies? (This goes back to my point on judging scholars on inadequate criteria.)
The second plausible reason for why some students would not be doing a PhD without A*Star's intervention is that these students were induced to apply for a PhD because of A*Star's scheme; that the NSS PhD scheme acts as a form of 'encouragement' inspiring them to become scientists. To this, I would say roughly the same thing: There are any number of other students (again, many of whom are Singaporeans), who get PhDs in science and engineering without such encouragement. We can hire them after they get their PhDs, if we used the money spent on such scholarships to create a significant salary differential between post-docs in A*Star and post-docs in the US. What justifies us shelling out instead on people who would be in two minds about doing science if not for the ostensible 'carrot' of the NSS PhD scholarship?
In any case, we should bear in mind that A*Star has limited (if considerable) funds. Suppose we grant that the NSS-PhD scholarships create extra PhD-holders who would otherwise be unavailable in A*Star and who are not in any way inferior to PhD-holders who would be available to A*Star no matter what. If my argument that hiring a fresh PhD as a post-doc at an unusually high salary is cheaper than funding an overseas PhD is right, than it would still be a better use of tax revenue to hire PhD-holders to 'replace' hypothetical NSS-PhD scholars. This would be true as long as there are enough such PhD-holders for A*Star to hire, an issue which I will elaborate on later.
A second objection to my alternative scheme, which I partly dealt with earlier, is that the financial carrot I estimate would not be enough to lure fresh PhDs from the US to Singapore. One might bring in cultural and lifestyle differences to make this objection. I do not deny that personal preferences can be strong enough to overcome the lure of a financial carrot. But for my scenario to work, it suffices that enough people can be found to accept the financial carrot. Surely it is not too extravagant an assumption that US$60,000 a year is significant enough to lure the numbers we need. To further strengthen my case, one need only consider the state of the scientific job market in the US. It has long been acknowledged that US universities are churning out more science and engineering PhDs than what they and industry can afford to hire.3 This results in many science PhDs leaving science for want of a job. Thus there is plenty of 'spare talent', including PhD-holders from top graduate schools, for A*Star to lure. Granted, not all of this 'spare talent' is Singaporean, but there is still the financial carrot, and Singaporeans naturally have other factors like personal connections that would ease the decision to return to work in Singapore. Furthermore, a glance at A*Star's list of scholars quickly reveals that A*Star does award overseas PhD scholarships to foreigners. So it would not exactly be a grave criticism of my alternative scheme if it also catches a few foreigners in its net. At the very least, it would be entirely in keeping with Singapore's 'foreign talent' policy.
Finally, it is instructive to note why the overseas scholarship schemes (NSS-BS and NSS-PhD) bring less bang for the buck than the local PhD scholarship scheme (AGS). Firstly, students under AGS are contributing to Singaporean science while doing their PhDs. Students doing overseas PhDs are not. Secondly, the money that goes into AGS ends up in Singaporean pockets --- those of NTU and NUS. Lastly, the money does create additional PhDs that would otherwise be unavailable to A*Star, since it allows NUS and NTU to take in more graduate students than they could otherwise afford to. Of course, as I explained above, some might argue that the overseas PhD scholarships also create additional PhDs that would otherwise be unavailable, but they do so at a significantly higher cost and with little obvious benefit over simply hiring fresh PhDs that overseas universities have trained at their own cost.
Footnotes:
1. "Students at Oxbridge have twice the chance of getting a first." The Independent , Dec 4 2005.
2. I have tacitly assumed that A*Star pays its post-docs the US market rate for post-docs. This may not be true, but as long as the present wage differentials are not too drastic, my main argument is not affected. (Incidentally, one would think that we should pay the US market rate if we are sincere about becoming a 'research hub'.)
3. See, for example, the article from the Chronicle of Higher Education excerpted here.
Comments (62)
I largely agree with the sentiments expressed in this article. Selecting students for PhD studies at the age of 18 is flawed. Selecting based on GPA is doubly flawed, and may lead to gaming behaviour (ie taking easier classes). Lastly, it doesn't distinguish between universities.
I would suggest that A*Star should let graduate admissions do their filtering for them - anyone who can get accepted to a top PhD program has more than enough credentials. I think that HR departments lack the ability to evaluate research. Instead of using a blunt instrument (GPA) they should let the experts deal with it.
As for funding, and the differences between local and foreign universities, I think that both are neccessary. It's not just about (marginal) bang for the buck, as these only exist at current levels. Scientific progress flourishes with the free exchange of ideas, so having people from many disparate educational backgrounds is ideal. So even if local PhDs are more cost-effective, it doesn't mean that we should emphasise the AGS more.
Posted by Pang Siu Taur | November 27, 2007 11:22 AM
One big problem I can foresee with paying an extra $60K to postdocs is that you have to pay everyone else a lot more too. For example, let's say you hire a fresh US PhD and pay him an extra 60K for coming over to SG. Chances are that his boss' salary in A*STAR is going to be lower than his starting salary. That's not going to make sense.
Also, it's unfair and bad for morale. Suppose you have a very good NUS PhD holder. He/she's not going to be eligible for this 60K even if he/she is as good as a graduate from a top US school. Why should he/she not be eligible for such signing-on bonuses?
Instead of giving out selective pay rises, why not just pay everyone better? What's wrong with paying good money for good people? It makes for better long-term retention of staff and you can get better scientists.
Posted by Fox | November 27, 2007 12:52 PM
Not every top ranked US school provides guaranteed financial support to their PhD students.
http://takchek.blogspot.com/2007/10/clearing-air-about-grad-school-funding.html
Posted by takchek | November 28, 2007 6:23 AM
takchek - Some grad schools are better funded than others. But if you look around a lot of campuses, there are a lot of PRCs and Indians who somehow managed to fund their first year before getting a RA'ship or TA'ship. To be blunt, strong students will have a better chance of getting funding. But presumably A*STAR only selects strong students to begin with.
You really shouldn't use "clearing the air" as a title - that's a really cheng hu phrase.
Posted by haveahacks | November 28, 2007 11:05 PM
Fox,
I fully agree that we should pay current scientists more. Which is why I called my alternative scenario a cartoon scenario. It is quite conceivable that the gains from paying current scientists more (and hence retaining more talent) outweigh those of the scholarships (if indeed there are any).
Actually, there is nothing in my scenario that disqualifies a good PhD-holder from NUS from taking on the higher pay. The broader point is simply that you can entice better talent to come here (or ensure that the good ones already here don't leave) by raising salaries, and that this is likely a more cost-effective way of attracting talent than the current overseas scholarships schemes.
Posted by twasher | November 30, 2007 12:05 AM
I am a first time blogger. I did not start reading blogs until I started my own. This blog has been so helpful to me as a newbie. Thumbs Up!
Posted by Read | December 2, 2007 7:26 AM
Hey Twasher I really enjoyed reading your article. Your arguments are cogent and well substantiated.
I believe that when the NSS-PhD scholarship was crafted several years ago, there wasn't a critical mass of Singaporean graduate students and PhD holders to begin with. The figures back then, correct me if I am wrong, showed that 1 out of every 3 research staffs in A-star research institute was a foreigner. The government has identified life science research as a pillar of economic growth and was expanding the biomedical science sector vigorously. Therefore, the lack of qualified locals to staff crucial positions was a pressing matter. The establishment of the scholarship was an immediate and most direct solution to guarantee a adaquately sized pool of Singaporean PhD holders a few years down the road.
Like you said, the terms of the scholarship are not without their flaws, especially the minimum academic performance. However, given the urgent demand for more Singaporean PhD holders, this expensive but quick acting model might have been the best pick of the day.
As more people start to consider the option of pursuing graduate studies on their own accord and as the number of Singaporean PhD holders increases, we should definitely consider other more cost-effective measures. I am not sure where we stand now but your suggestions should be seriously considered when the time is right.
Posted by sgduke | December 2, 2007 1:49 PM
Therefore, the lack of qualified locals to staff crucial positions was a pressing matter. The establishment of the scholarship was an immediate and most direct solution to guarantee an adequately sized pool of Singaporean PhD holders a few years down the road.
It takes about 9 years to complete the BS-PhD route for the A*STAR scholars, excluding any postdoctoral training. I fail to see how that can meet any immediate manpower need or indeed, any that might arise in a few years down the road.
Posted by Fox | December 3, 2007 8:29 PM
Revised A*STAR terms ... I didn't know that the terms were so austere
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/280751/1/.html
anyway ... does anyone hv any comments on the quality of A*Star scholars?
Posted by takena | December 6, 2007 10:25 AM
takena,
Some will disagree with me, but my opinion of A*Star scholars is as follows:
They all are 'smart' in a certain sense. That is, smart enough to get good A-level results and to do reasonably well in overseas universities.
That said, being a scientist takes a lot more than that. You need a belief in the worth of what you do. You need a strong interest that pushes you to ask questions that don't appear on exam papers or problem sets. You need to be willing to settle for a much lifetime income than your peers in finance or business.
I think that while A*Star scholars are unquestionably of a higher calibre than your average undergraduate in even top overseas universities, they don't fare too well when compared to the average entrant to a top overseas graduate school. The key difference is that most students who want to go to graduate school participate in undergraduate research (in fact, at my undergraduate institution, I knew no one in my major who did not). This is not true for (I estimate) at least half of A*Star's BS scholars. This negligence is, to me, nothing less than criminal in students who claim that they want to be scientists. Many scholars also have a "it's just a job" attitude towards science.
I have met a handful of truly outstanding scholars, those who would pursue science to the fullest even if they had not taken up the scholarship. But I have met a great deal more who are simply following the path determined for them by the contract they signed when they were 18 years old. There are many who, despite not being particularly thrilled by science as undergraduates, do the PhD anyway because they feel that they are 'failures' if they don't do what their more 'scientific' peers do. There are scholars who deliberately take easy courses or drop courses in which they start out badly in order to maintain their perfect GPA. I could go on...
Posted by twasher | December 7, 2007 12:34 AM
twasher,
One is that the requirement of a cumulative GPA of 3.8 or first-class honours is sufficient to filter out the 'undeserving' NSS-BS scholars.
This is new to the KTM. Did A*STAR ever claim that the cumulative GPA of 3.8 is sufficient to filter out the "undeserving" scholars? Perhaps you can elaborate on what you mean by "undeserving"?
Are you saying that if a scholar achieves 3.8 GPA, he/she will be allowed to go to any lau pok grad school that he/she chooses? If so, that would be a criminal waste of tax money. If in addition to the GPA, A*STAR scholars are also required to enrol in reputable PhD programmes, it's not clear to the KTM what's your beef with the current situation.
If you are suggesting that 3.8 GPA + admission to a good graduate programming is not sufficient ("pathetic filter" in your words), how would you have done it if you were in charge of running the A*STAR scholarship programme?
After these budding scientists complete their PhD, A*Star lures them back to Singapore with the carrot of a significantly higher pay than what they would get as post-docs in the US.
On what basis would you claim that this will be a more successful scheme? :-) You are so sure that $$$ is sufficient to attract them back? Have you tried talking to these group of people that you've highlighted? Do they do their PhDs because they want to earn lots of $$$? Do you think that A*STAR provides the best academic environment for the best and brightest of the Singaporeans who finish their PhDs at the top schools overseas?
There are any number of other students (again, many of whom are Singaporeans), who get PhDs in science and engineering without such encouragement. We can hire them after they get their PhDs, if we used the money spent on such scholarships to create a significant salary differential between post-docs in A*Star and post-docs in the US (emphasis mine).
Frankly, the KTM doubts you know what you're saying. Do people do post-docs for the pay? The KTM is not making any judgments on the effectiveness of the A*STAR scholarship schemes in terms of producing the sorts of "talent" that we need. Your views on how easy it is to attract good PhDs to Singapore seems somewhat naive and unrealistic to the KTM.
As it turns out, many of the very good Singaporeans who complete their PhDs in the US are able to get very attractive positions in the US -- and money is not sufficient bring them back. Moral of the story is that the *real* scientists don't do science for the money. If the A*STAR scholars are successful, it will be because some young, bright and gullible 18-year-old doesn't know better and anyhow sign and then later kind of got stuck with A*STAR and feels morally obliged to come back.
The KTM's view is that A*STAR's scholarship scheme is perhaps Singapore's only chance to getting some of the most outstanding scientists to come back (but chance only. Sort of like a gamble). Whether it is successful or not remains to be seen.
Lastly, the money does create additional PhDs that would otherwise be unavailable to A*Star, since it allows NUS and NTU to take in more graduate students than they could otherwise afford to.
You have no idea how much money there is in the system do you? NUS and NTU have PLENTY of money to train graduate students. Money is never and will not be the problem for the forseeable future. Problem is that the good graduate students don't want to come.
Posted by Kway Teow Man | December 7, 2007 7:08 PM
KTM,
Money is never and will not be the problem for the forseeable future. Problem is that the good graduate students don't want to come.
This begs the question as to why do good graduate students/researchers not want to come to Singapore and if scholarships awarded to bright A-level students is the best way to compensate for this lack of appeal.
Posted by Fox | December 9, 2007 12:17 AM
Fox: I don't get it--who has been offering or planning to offer undergraduate scholarships to A-level students so as to attract graduate students to do their PhDs in NUS/NTU?
Posted by Huichieh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.singaporeangle.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 9, 2007 8:47 AM
Fox: I don't get it--who has been offering or planning to offer undergraduate scholarships to A-level students so as to attract graduate students to do their PhDs in NUS/NTU?
No one.
But if I understand correctly what he claims, the KTM is essentially claiming that because we cannot attract enough good researchers to Singapore and thus, enough research manpower, awarding the A*STAR scholarships is the next best solution to acquiring enough manpower.
Posted by Fox | December 9, 2007 10:23 AM
Fox,
This begs the question as to why do good graduate students/researchers not want to come to Singapore.
Perhaps the question is: why should they want to come? While scholarships are available, the stipends cannot compare with *REAL* jobs for the good candidates. For the lousy candidates, they want us, we might not want them.
That's not to say that no good candidates are coming, but perhaps the numbers aren't quite enough and overall, the quality ain't quite good enough?
Finally, that's the question of whether NUS and NTU are capable to training the PhD students as well as the top schools in the US. Personally, the KTM doesn't believe that NUS and NTU are quite up to the same standards as the top graduate schools worldwide and having a whole bunch of PhDs trained worldwide will also improve local diversity when they get back.
the KTM is essentially claiming that because we cannot attract enough good researchers to Singapore and thus, enough research manpower, awarding the A*STAR scholarships is the next best solution to acquiring enough manpower.
Clarification: the KTM never said anything about awarding A*STAR scholarships being the next best solution. Actually, the KTM is quite interested to find out exactly how effective A*STAR scholarships are in producing the sort of research manpower we need. The KTM is merely disagreeing with twasher's suggestion that the alternative and better solution is just to throw the same money at the problem but in a different way.
Posted by Kway Teow Man | December 9, 2007 3:10 PM
pull factor is really the same as blogs. Advertising, hype and links can only do so much. May even get you noticed, but once people begin to look beneath just the surface, they will just move away. I mean if you look around in blogosphere, some blogs are so wired to other blogs, but they still dont get many readers. Then you have really strange things like the Brotherhood Press which have no links! Not even a single one! But they still manage to attract a steady stream of readers.
Moral of the Story; I dont really believe one can get very far leaving out the beef in the corn beef sandwich. That I believe is what many of our leaders have been trying to pass off as world class education and as we can see, the really smart people are deciding otherwise.
Posted by guppy | December 10, 2007 2:46 PM
That why I believe while many researchers come, they dont stay. When the planners realize it takes more than just designer architects and experimental buildings to make up a real campus. Then I believe we will really be in a position to act as a research lightning rod. As it is we have the hardware, but no software. Not even in the race.
Posted by guppy | December 10, 2007 2:58 PM
Do you see now - why you cannot run away from the question.
Again please Mr Bernard Leong, why were, we not mentioned in the Singapore Blogosphere review.
It will NEVER go away. I want to make that clear. However AGAIN do NOT expect an answer to be forth coming.
Ha - Ha
Darkness 2007
Life is not simple after all, is it?
Posted by Darkness | December 10, 2007 6:33 PM
When you and Mr Bernard Leong are ready. We can sit down and do something productive. When you are ready ONLY.
Darkness 2007
Posted by Darkness | December 10, 2007 6:35 PM
Fox,
This begs the question as to why do good graduate students/researchers not want to come to Singapore and if scholarships awarded to bright A-level students is the best way to compensate for this lack of appeal.
An important consideration for graduate students and budding researchers is the presence of researchers who are acknowledged to be the best in their field. Smart students are not likely to settle for anything but the best education. We have lured a couple of big names in the biomedical sciences here and if we can lure more of them here (and keep them here of course), there shouldn't be a worry about good graduate students/researchers not wanting to come. I believe that it is only a matter of time before all the good graduate students start flooding Singapore, especially if we can lure more big names here.
Posted by Aaron Ng | December 10, 2007 11:10 PM
KTM wrote:
Are you saying that if a scholar achieves 3.8 GPA, he/she will be allowed to go to any lau pok grad school that he/she chooses? If so, that would be a criminal waste of tax money. If in addition to the GPA, A*STAR scholars are also required to enrol in reputable PhD programmes, it's not clear to the KTM what's your beef with the current situation.
No, scholars have to get into reputable grad schools. But they have to get into reputable grad schools with the promise of A*Star's funding behind them. This is a far easier task than getting into a reputable grad school without any financial backing --- while there are no doubt minimum standards that have to be met before schools accept pre-funded students, they are essentially free labour as the schools do not have to shell out a single cent for them. The vast majority of graduate students, however, apply for funding from the graduate schools, and hence the standards of admissions for them are much tougher than those for AStar scholars. So AStar is selecting for its scholar-scientists with a much coarser filter than the graduate schools are selecting for most of their students.
Posted by twasher | December 10, 2007 11:56 PM
twasher,
Thanks for your clarifications. The KTM is unfortunately completely clear exactly what is the point you are making.
Are you saying that because "AStar is selecting for its scholar-scientists with a much coarser filter than the graduate schools are selecting for most of their students", therefore ASTAR scholar-scientists are no good and we are wasting tax payers' monies? Also, do you have evidence that most of ASTAR scholars are obtaining their places for grad school only because of their financial support from ASTAR and they would not have been awarded a place otherwise?
Suppose you are right and ASTAR scholars actually get places in the top schools because they got the financial backing (and wouldn't have gotten a place otherwise). Are you saying they will not make good scientists? Is it wrong for Singapore to spend some extra dough (since we seem to have so much floating around that we have to give to the foreign students as scholarships) to give our own Singaporeans that extra edge in getting into a good grad school?
Final question (sorry the KTM is extremely cheonghei): suppose ASTAR funding can get a student through the door (and into a good PhD programme), does it mean that the same funding will see that the student graduate with a PhD?
Posted by Kway Teow Man | December 11, 2007 12:09 AM
twasher,
Whoops. Typo. The KTM meant to say that he's not completely clear what point you were making. My apologies.
Posted by Kway Teow Man | December 11, 2007 12:12 AM
In your own time. Remember there is never any pressure.
Posted by Darkness | December 11, 2007 12:15 AM
On what basis would you claim that this will be a more successful scheme? :-) You are so sure that $$$ is sufficient to attract them back? Have you tried talking to these group of people that you've highlighted? Do they do their PhDs because they want to earn lots of $$$? Do you think that A*STAR provides the best academic environment for the best and brightest of the Singaporeans who finish their PhDs at the top schools overseas?
You have confused two issues: whether people make the decision to do their PhDs for monetary reasons, or whether people choose between jobs for monetary reasons. The former is generally not true. The latter is often true even for people in science, simply because wages in science, even at the post-doctoral level, are low enough that those who are thinking of (say) having families and buying houses have to be concerned about whether the wages typically offered are adequate for their non-career aspirations. Scientists are humans too; they do often want to 'settle down' and all that, and those more 'human' issues tend to be more important when you're 28 than when you're 21.
I have talked to a few people who have voluntarily returned because they were offered, shall we say, 'good' positions (it would have been impolite to inquire about their wages). And it is no secret that ASTAR lures many established foreign scientists here by wage carrots. Granted, these are not post-docs, but since ASTAR does not attempt to offer above-market-rate wages for post-docs, the lack of post-docs who came here for the wages isn't any evidence against my hypothesis. I also know, from my time overseas, many graduate students who moved into finance instead of science because of the lack of post-docs. These students are by no means exceptions; c.f. the article I cited about the state of the US academic job market. When you decide to do your PhD, you have little idea about whether your graduate school record will turn out to be good enough to get you a research position. The competition is stiff and many do not make the cut. You also have little idea if what you raved about in your grad school application really is what you want to do for the rest of your life. It turns out for many that what they thought they'd pursue to the ends of the earth became something they'd pursue if they were adequately compensated for it. Often, they are still interested in science, but their interest is no longer strong enough to justify them continuing to subject themselves to the vagaries of the academic job market.
As for the 'academic environment', in the first place, I do not think A*STAR strives to create an 'academic environment' so much as a 'research environment' (there is no culture of teaching and less of a culture of mentorship than there is in universities). But in any case, I do not think it is uniformly true across all fields that ASTAR offers an inferior research environment to other places overseas. One feature of ASTAR that no one complains about is that it is much easier to get funding here than elsewhere, which is extremely important to experimentalists. I have also talked to a theorist who is happy to stay here because he gets a lot more funding for travelling to conferences and such, so he can easily keep in touch with his overseas collaborators and does not feel confined to Singapore. So that feature is one big plus for the research environment here. In specific fields, there are other pluses, such as the comparative lack of regulations concerning stem cell research. The research environment in ASTAR varies greatly between its research institutes and between different research groups in the same institute, so I don't think it's necessarily the case that ASTAR's research environment is what's keeping people away, at least not in the biomedical sciences. The research environment in general is somewhat more dismal in the physical sciences, but then again there are still mitigating factors such as the ease of getting funds for your tunnelling electron microscope.
Posted by twasher | December 11, 2007 12:31 AM
Are you saying that because "AStar is selecting for its scholar-scientists with a much coarser filter than the graduate schools are selecting for most of their students", therefore ASTAR scholar-scientists are no good and we are wasting tax payers' monies?
As I wrote in reply to takena, I certainly think some scholars are extremely good indeed; however, these are the ones who would probably get into good graduate schools even if they did not have Astar's financial backing, so the sole purpose of spending money on them is then to ensure that they cannot afford to break their bond. What you get then is these rather good people being forced to return to work for Astar often against their will (either because they could have been paid better as post-docs elsewhere, or they prefer the research environment elsewhere). Unhappy scientists, in general, are not a recipe for good science and foment discontent in the ranks (of which there is more than enough already).
Also, do you have evidence that most of ASTAR scholars are obtaining their places for grad school only because of their financial support from ASTAR and they would not have been awarded a place otherwise?
Again, my reply to takena is relevant here. Many Astar scholars do not bother participating in research at their undergraduate institutions. Talk to any professor at a top graduate school, however, and they will tell you that undergraduate research is the number one criteria in their evaluation of CVs. Since we obviously don't have access to the CVs of Astar scholars versus those of typical successful grad school applicants, I guess all I can say is that I would judge most Astar scholars to be signficantly inferior to most successful grad school applicants on the dimension of scientific potential.
Posted by twasher | December 11, 2007 12:49 AM
Suppose you are right and ASTAR scholars actually get places in the top schools because they got the financial backing (and wouldn't have gotten a place otherwise). Are you saying they will not make good scientists? Is it wrong for Singapore to spend some extra dough (since we seem to have so much floating around that we have to give to the foreign students as scholarships) to give our own Singaporeans that extra edge in getting into a good grad school?
The claim is not that these scholars will not make good scientists. The claim instead is that all that extra dough we spend on scholarships could be better spent via my alternative scenario (perhaps combined with Fox's suggestion of paying current scientists more to stem the brain drain). Of course if you throw enough money on scholarships you will get lucky and get a few good people emerging out of it.
As for whether it is 'wrong', I am unclear as to whether you are asking if it's morally wrong (clearly not, and I never claimed otherwise) or whether you're asking if it is unwise in the light of Astar's stated objectives. I believe that the latter is true, for reasons that I've already gone into at length in my article.
Posted by twasher | December 11, 2007 12:55 AM
Final question (sorry the KTM is extremely cheonghei): suppose ASTAR funding can get a student through the door (and into a good PhD programme), does it mean that the same funding will see that the student graduate with a PhD?
The student still has to meet the official requirements for getting a PhD (qualifiers if any, coursework if any, successfully defending a thesis, etc). But the fact that the students successfully jumps through these hoops does not demonstrate that he/she is equal in scientific ability to all the other students who have successfully jumped through them. Students who are funded from their advisor's grant, for example, are more in danger of getting axed before they finish for incompetency, simply because they are expensive to 'maintain' and need to account for their maintenance fees. Clearly Astar scholars are under no such pressure and hence can't be weeded out this way. Even though they still have to produce an acceptable thesis, there is more leeway for them to make mistakes along the way. Also, PhD students in the US typically have to do at least two years of teaching in addition to coursework and research requirements. Their teaching duties partially pay for their education. AStar scholars do not need to teach, and in fact I know of a case where a scholar decided to teach for extra money but was ordered to surrender his earnings to AStar. So once again the scholars have an easier time than other PhD candidates. I think it is reasonable to infer from the fact that other PhD candidates have higher hurdles set for them that ceteris paribus they are on average better trained than AStar scholars.
Posted by twasher | December 11, 2007 1:10 AM
twasher,
You have confused two issues: whether people make the decision to do their PhDs for monetary reasons, or whether people choose between jobs for monetary reasons.
There's obviously some confusion lah. Otherwise the KTM also wouldn't be asking questions what. The KTM is struggling with two issues: (i) trying to understand exactly what is broken with the present system; and (ii) the basis for your claims that your proposed money carrot is going to work better.
... wages in science, even at the post-doctoral level, are low enough that those who are thinking of (say) having families and buying houses have to be concerned about whether the wages typically offered are adequate for their non-career aspirations.
So we are saying that the scientists who are on the margins where if you dun pay them enough, they become bankers; if you pay them enough, they become scientists are the ones we want? Do we know how many of such scientists there are?
And it is no secret that ASTAR lures many established foreign scientists here by wage carrots.
And do we have the statistics on the average age of these scientists? Question: how many eminent scientists who are in their PRIME are here because of A*STAR, and not because they cannot do stem cell research in the US?
Granted, these are not post-docs, but since ASTAR does not attempt to offer above-market-rate wages for post-docs, the lack of post-docs who came here for the wages isn't any evidence against my hypothesis.
Agreed that there is no evidence against your hypothesis, but if your facts that the job market for post-docs is really bad is accurate, perhaps there is not need to offer above-market-rate what? If the supply of PhDs > demand, then even if we offer market rate, some should come.... unless we're back to the above case where you're trying to argue that the "marginal scientists" will make good scientists?
Often, they are still interested in science, but their interest is no longer strong enough to justify them continuing to subject themselves to the vagaries of the academic job market.
The KTM is again confused by your reasoning. If these fellas aren't so great ('cos otherwise they will have ready jobs) and they aren't so hot about science ('cos they don't want to "subject themselves to the vagaries of the academic job market"), then we want to pay them more to come to Singapore to do science because?
But suppose you are right, that some of these people exist. On what basis would you claim that there are enough of such people so that if instead of giving our scholarship as we are doing now, we increase the pay for post-docs?
Posted by Kway Teow Man | December 11, 2007 2:07 AM
twasher,
What you get then is these rather good people being forced to return to work for Astar often against their will (either because they could have been paid better as post-docs elsewhere, or they prefer the research environment elsewhere). Unhappy scientists, in general, are not a recipe for good science and foment discontent in the ranks (of which there is more than enough already).
On one hand you are saying that the scholarship system is producing good scientists. On the other hand, you are saying that they are unhappy and therefore scholarships is the wrong idea.
Perhaps the KTM can offer a slightly different perspective: at least we know that the scholarship system is somewhat working in that you do get some good scientists like the KTM has hypothesized. Maybe the solution to unhappy scientists is to do something to make them happy?
Suppose you hire top brains with the cash you save from the scholarships.... if the scholars under bond are unhappy working at A*STAR, these other guys who work for cash will be happy? Perhaps your logic is that they will be happ(ier) because of the $$$? Ah, but then you have to support your claim that your scheme will necessarily be able to attract the sort of talent that the current scheme is already attracting.
Many Astar scholars do not bother participating in research at their undergraduate institutions.
Perhaps the KTM is mistaken, but the A*STAR scholars have to come back to work for a year in some A*STAR research lab and they apply for grad school during that year right? Are you claiming that this year supposedly spent doing research is worthless and it is inconceivable that the graduate schools might have taken this experience into account?
The claim instead is that all that extra dough we spend on scholarships could be better spent via my alternative scenario (perhaps combined with Fox's suggestion of paying current scientists more to stem the brain drain).
What the KTM is really trying to understand is the BASIS for this claim. The keyword here is better. The KTM is not at this point disputing that you are wrong and that your scheme is not better. The KTM is merely suggesting that you have not made a sufficiently strong case for why your scheme is better. And the KTM has highlighted the areas in which your arguments fall short.
I think it is reasonable to infer from the fact that other PhD candidates have higher hurdles set for them that ceteris paribus they are on average better trained than AStar scholars.
Frankly, your argument here is quite unreasonable. On one hand, you are claiming that the A*STAR scholars have it easy and dun have to do things like teach -- which essentially means that they actually have MORE TIME to do research. And with more time (and hopefully training), they are therefore worse trained than the other PhDs?
Clearly Astar scholars are under no such pressure and hence can't be weeded out this way. Even though they still have to produce an acceptable thesis, there is more leeway for them to make mistakes along the way.
The KTM disagrees with you. Do you know the consequence of failing a PhD qualifier as an A*STAR scholar? If you don't, perhaps you should find out. Compare with non-A*STAR-scholar grad students who can happily drop out of grad school to do finance on Wall Street. :-P
Posted by Kway Teow Man | December 11, 2007 2:23 AM
Let me put it this way, research is simply a means to an end, there is no such thing as research for the sake research. We would like to believe research is function by itself, but it is not, for lack of a better word, it is simply an arms race i.e an attempt to control technology in very much the same way ancient charioteers once developed the art of riding and shooting arrows at the same time. As a result if we take a look at the history of inventions, 99% have been direct accretions from this simple formula i.e the prosecution to sustain the arms race rather than for profitability (cannot put the cart bfr the horse, if u do that garbage in / garbage out) - an arms race connotes a few things, one of them is attrition i.e resource scarcity, so the crossbow wasn't as much a technological leap as it was a very real attempt to augment a shortage of skilled archers and material shortages without compromising on the need to deliver the kinetic energy necessary to pierce medieval armor. In the same way, skyscraper technology offered a means of maximizing real estate opportunities under a set constrains - rocket technology did not develop because man wanted to go to the moon rather it was the only means available to deliver warheads as the German air force in 1944 was completely decimated, again my point is all these innovations flowed directly from a condition of acute resource scarcity, that's to say they are not directional bi-product, but rather accretions. You could just as well take this model that I developed for gaming (I have not given it a name yet) and play it out to explain the success and failure of almost everything that has been invented in the last 50 years. The question is how does this understanding of how this model works supply the vital information that allows you NOT to effectively make sense of the research process (remember it is an accretion), but rather the goal of that process? Now once you understand that, then you will realize all this discussion concerning the factor conditions i.e what's the best way to attract researchers etc can never produce an accurate result. It can only produce a result, if you believe for one moment, it's a sensible proposition to put the cart before the horse. As I have pointed out, you cannot. That's why all you are really doing here is going around in big and small circles - you're not going for the kill.
Darkness 2007
Posted by Darkness | December 11, 2007 3:01 AM
As a result if we take a look at the history of inventions, 99% have been direct accretions from this simple formula i.e the prosecution to sustain the arms race rather than for profitability (cannot put the cart bfr the horse, if u do that garbage in / garbage out) - an arms race connotes a few things, one of them is attrition i.e resource scarcity.
So in order to derive at an Archimedean point that allows to make sense of this hubris, you need to ask; how is this constrain managed? Now bear in mind how you may wish to manage it isn't as much a direct action as it is how well u r able to design a system that accommodates the bottleneck i.e crossbow is a compound weapon, so it doesn't require protracted skill of arms training, neither does its require elastic type timber = very efficient / juxtaposed it to the current discussion; given there are only X number of talent and Y number of opportunities; how does one determine the most efficient coefficient to sustain the equilibrium between X and Y?
What is your bottleneck?
Now you can go for the kill.
Posted by Darkness | December 11, 2007 3:28 AM
What makes Darkness quite different from the other writers who were his contemporaries is that, for reasons having to do with having knocked his head on something presumably very hard, he has suddenly lost all self consciousness about what it is like to remain humble. Hence, in re-telling his yarn, he dramatizes that's "it's my theory." When infact, we all know only too well, its nothing of the sort. One point needs further clarification. The notion of discrepant results which would otherwise be produce by placing the cart before the horse. Pls do correct me Darkness, but isn't this just an attempt to circumvent the incovenience of having to deal with the whole problem of how complex it is to attract and sustain the requisite talent in a research hub. Not only in Singapore I might very well add, but all around the world!
I will have you know sir, contrary to your statement, that research is akin to an arms race. No experience that is interpreted or reflected on can be characterized as even lending any credence to this "theory". Let alone claim to have achieve something as laughable as an Archimedean perspective that is subject neither to history nor of the special cultural setting in Singapore which makes it extremely difficult to sustain such research enterprises.
Far from taking us any closer to the goal of resolving the hubris. By deliberately seeking to reduce the significance of socio, political, economic and technological push and pull factors. This adds very little to enable us to appreciate the powers that come into play to shape the research landscape in Singapore.
Posted by C.Paglia | December 11, 2007 3:47 PM
I wish to stress the following Sir, by your insistence on even having such a thing as a vantage offered by the Archimedean, your approach is flawed. I do not mean what people mean when they say blibly that there aree two sides to every question. The difficulty with theories conerning barriers and the taking of sides, si that they give rise to polarization that either absolve or in your case "forgive" (or am I wrong Sir?)ignorance and demagogy more than they enable the pursuit of knowledge! Even a very cursory look at the whole issue of sustaining a research enterprise confirms this is hardly a simple model that's necessarily free from the influences of modern nationalism and the modern state.
So let us dispel with your lexicons and begin by acceptiong the notion that although there is an irreducible subjective core to all we may well define concerning the research enterprises, this understanding in no way stems solely from the vantage of your laughable Archimedean vantage!
Posted by C.Paglia | December 11, 2007 3:59 PM
Hi Bambi bad boy,
I have read through what I have written above and I must say, its a trifle brash. I do apologize, allow me to just add a comparative or, betterm a contrapuntal perspective would do very nicely to tease out the connection between (as you rightly described) factor conditions and sustaining research enterprises. Dont you agree? That is, we must be able to think through and interpret together experiences tthat are discrepant, each with its particular agenda and pace of development, it s won internal formations, its internal coherence and system of external relationships, all of them co-existing and interacting with others - that I believe would allow for a more representative model rather than linking research to the entire issue of arms race.
Posted by C. Paglia | December 11, 2007 5:17 PM
"allow me to just add a comparative or, betterm a contrapuntal perspective would do very nicely to tease out the connection between (as you rightly described) factor conditions and sustaining research enterprises. Dont you agree?"
No. I do not agree. That way of making sense of the research enterprises broadens the enquiry to such an extent that it's bound to skewer whatever results - that's the reason why we are being told now that all the benefits from pursuing research enterprises is indirect. Now who the hell does anything for indirect results? Not even the Aga Khan can afford to do that! If you want to do that, then go and put more street lighting or repave the whole of Orchard with homogeneous tiles, using your model, I can just as well argue one can get the same 'indirect' utility that way - I am openly challenging you!
So let us not kid ourselves. If you really want to pin the problem of why we cannot seem to get the research ball rolling despite putting in so much coal into the furnace to generate its own steam, then you really need to go one step further and take out the whole engine and look at what's really wrong. It has to be the efficiency of the conversion ratio. That's to say, in this instance, you must be take the forward approach and say, this is could be the reason why things don't work and start from there! In effect that approach gives you a before, during and after account. Who the hell really cares what makes it work! I could just as well use kitchen sink management to model it, but in this case, I have used the arms race model, how does your model contribute to that sort of understanding? Zero!
The arms race model is pertinent to our enquiry as it allows us to make sense of two dichotomies; firstly, how do you get experts with the skill of arms to sustain your imperative? Secondly, how do you solicit loyalty from this group? IMHO the arms race model goes a long way of making sense of this hubris as it provisions for the understanding that foreign mercenaries will have to feature in any arms race in very much the same way the Ottoman empire once recruited the Janissary or the Romans the Praetorian order to fulfill their martial aspirations. My model allows all these things to be effectively hammered into sense, sustaining their usage along with getting them to even stay, your model does little except to provide a retrospective account of what went wrong.
So pls don't rubbish my model just because it is based on the whole idea of the arms race [a concept that you obviously have no understanding abt] or draw the mistaken assumption that I need to humble myself just because I did not quote some ang moh derelict academic, I do not need references as I am capable to synthesizing my own models to make sense of the world which you obviously are incapable of doing so.
Your mother for getting personal with me.
Darkness 2007
Posted by Darkness | December 11, 2007 7:15 PM
Dear Darkness,
I really don't want to butt in. However this dance along the well worn paths of "origins" and "functions" using your so called formulation is not all together novel. I believe Paglia was not rebuking your technique, but rather questioning whether you have perhaps provisioned for external events to adequately feature in your model. I am in no way suggesting for one moment, it is impractical to use the arm race to explain away much of this phenomenon - only as Paglia noted quiet accurately sir, surely even you would have to admit the limits imposed by the field on anthropology and ethnography! i can well see how you have managed to make sense of the situation by perhaps very cleverly finding analogies between how factor conditions may bear an influence on the research enterprises in Singapore.
However Sir, do you not consider your approach to be a mere simplification of what is obviously a very complex enterprise? I do not doubt for one moment, new approaches to make sense of the "hubris" will eventually emerge sir. However, as much as I would like to believe the answer lies in Mathematical game theory, I do not believe this to be the case.
I would however like to hear more abt your theory and so far you have offered a very critical review of our research enterprises. May I ask sir what you believe is the main problem and how would you suggest that we go abt resolving it.
Thank You
Do have a very nice day Darkness
OXO
Posted by oxo | December 12, 2007 12:59 PM
Sir,
"Secondly, how do you solicit loyalty from this group? IMHO the arms race model goes a long way of making sense of this hubris as it provisions for the understanding that foreign mercenaries will have to feature in any arms race in very much the same way the Ottoman empire once recruited the Janissary or the Romans the Praetorian order to fulfill their martial aspirations. My model allows all these things to be effectively hammered into sense...."
Darkness, i wish to draw your attention to the following omissions. Contrary to what you have stated, the ultimate strength of the Roman Army, and the characteristic that made it the model did not emerge directly from the ranks of foreign mercenaries. Neither was it supplied by its system of recruitment nor by its high command but by its legionary encadrement, the centurionate. The Roman centurions, long-service unit-leaders drawn from the best of the enlisted ranks, formed the first body of professional fighting officers known to history. It was they and not as you incorrect aluded to offer an explanation by highlighting the role of the Praetoria Guards who successfull imbued the Roman legions with their backbone and made possible the transmission from generation to generation the code of discipline and the store of tactical expertise by which characterized the Roman skill of arms.
Have a good day Sir.
Posted by OXO | December 12, 2007 1:11 PM
If you want me to supply the missing link that allows you to know where we went wrong and how best to resolve the problem - then I need you all to admit that you are no closer to resolving this matter without resorting to my crackbrained theory. I am asking you all to admit that you have no imagination? And one aspect of not having any imagination means that you are not in a position to even imagine how to get yourself out from this shit hole? Yes, because it is apparent to me that while all of you ladies contend that I have been indiscriminate in crafting my model, none can deny anything to do with the proposition of 'research' in the context of sustainability cannot run away from reconciling two diametrically opposed issues; namely; One is how to pay for the new system? The other is how to assure the loyalty of those who belong to it? The two are intimately connected. Any research enterprise supports itself by direct exaction on at least two fronts, either on the rest of society or on outsiders; in the latter, the danger inherent in the resort to mercenaries (proven scientist) is that the funds necessary to support them may dry up before the contract reaches its agreed term, or that a war goes on longer than expected, with the same result, or that, if a state has been so miserly, complacent or supine as to depend exclusively on hire soldiers, the mercenaries come to see that they constitute the effective power within it. Yes, I know some of you may express revulsion at my metaphor of proposing to link eminently qualified scientist to lowly Gurkhas of Nepal, but the usage is a function that adequately demonstrates how it is possible to buy into a well regulated mercenary market to pursue national aspirations, to which hirelings return after the expiry of their term of service; that is the basis of the mercenary system. I will have you all know that I spent countless hours developing this model.
This leads to the consideration of whether I am prepared to assent to your request:
"I would however like to hear more abt your theory and so far you have offered a very critical review of our research enterprises. May I ask sir what you believe is the main problem and how would you suggest that we go abt resolving it."
The answer is a flat 'NO!' And you can all go back to the discourse bfr I made my debut into this thread where everyone is just trading marbles and discussing how long is a piece of string?
Posted by Darkness | December 12, 2007 6:17 PM
There is an interesting article on A-STAR in Reuters:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKSIN30822620071211?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
Seems that our foreign talent: Colman, David Lane and his wife are all leaving our shores. Given that the early intention of paying these people is to guide our scholars, I wonder whether our scholars can be guided to be good scientists in the future.
Posted by Wang Wu | December 12, 2007 6:18 PM
Pls read this:
http://intelligentsingaporean.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/when-bio-technology-spells-%e2%80%9cir%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-impossible-research/
That is all, I can offer you.
Darkness 2007
Posted by Darkness | December 12, 2007 6:31 PM
Bambi Darkness Boy,
I never once intentionally said anything against your personage. All I did was to point out the quiantness of your approach. And glossed over it by recommending, in practical terms, a "contrapuntal approach" which means reading a text with an understanding of what is involved when an author shows, for instance, X scientist is required to support Y enterprises under a given set of resources.
Despite your lack of conventionality, I do admit the arms race model offers an uncannily suggestive starting point for grappling at close quarters what is obviously a very complex subject.
Let us return to your model. May I ask which special mix of power, ideology and endeavor did you use as the basis of your model?
Posted by Paglia | December 13, 2007 2:01 PM
The question at hand is why I even bothered developing such a model in the first instance Paglia. Since you have taken the trouble to apologize, I will oblige you but only in part. One of my motivations stemmed directly from the critical need to develop gaming technologies. Here you must comprehend that a rocket in the a game is to all intents and purposes not so different from a real rocket, it lifts off very much in the same manner and is controlled by more or less a same set of gyroscopic stabilizers that steers it to its target - the only difference is perhaps if a virtual rocket blows up, it always blows up in exactly the same sequence and that's very much a programming function. However, to facilitate your understanding, what is important to emphasize is the development associated with rocket technology remains the same in the virtual as it does in the physical world, they are very much subject to the same paradigms, material constraints, time deficits along with everything to do with research and development.
It was during one of these developments Paglia that I took a deeper interest in studying in depth, the development of the Saturn V series propulsion systems, a mainstay of the payload delivery system that was used by NASA. My objective was to gain valuable manufacturing technologies which would hopefully allow me to incorporate it into the gaming network to develop a very specific type of space cruisers known as time fold leviathans - in this analysis, let us just dispel with the boring details suffice to say, I asked a few questions: how did the Americans develop their space program? What were the core competencies necessary to support this enterprise? Could these core competencies be replicated and if so what were the constraints? In my researching it didn't take me very long to figure out the father of rocketry, a certain Dr Werner Von Braun was single handedly credited with much of the innovations which made possible the whole enterprise of space travel. I began to research further and gathered the following, prior to 1945, the US did not have a single faculty teaching rocket propulsion within its aeronautical engineering syllabus, yet within just a span of less than 10 years, not only had they successfully launched the Atlas series rockets, but along with all this a plethora small to medium sized propulsion systems had also been developed - how could this happen? It seemed curious to me that a country that did not even possess something as rudimentary as a wind tunnel which could simulate flight under supersonic conditions prior to 1945 could suddenly gain a position of primacy in 1955 to suggest sending a man to the moon! - now we are only talking about a period of 10 years! Just to put it in relative scale for you, its like compressing the whole of the Renaissance period into one year - that's how complex rocket science is! So something had to be going on big time prior to 1945, maybe the aliens were teaching someone how to blast off into space, what else could account for the already substantive store of knowledge on rocketry? This prompted me to research deeper into the specific designs of each of these propulsion and guidance systems - key to understanding; I was not interested to know how they developed the technology - only how was the division labor organized? How was the talent divided and directed? This formed the central investigative theme as all I was interested in at the time was the efficiency or conversion index - this also accounts for why my analysis was wholly quantitative. It was divided into 3 main segments where I used a series of standard parametrics tools to first determine the AQL (Acceptable Quality Level / Time Labor Curve) along side the ODP (overall design parameter /mission objectives to build to blueprint) this would hopefully give me an understanding of how efficiently the US managed to make full use of these ex Nazi scientist. During a business trip to London, I even visited the Imperial War Museum to check off some of my assumptions. Paglia I spared no detail and left no stone unturned. You have my word on this as a professional and spent considerable time sieving through many of the technical blue prints to seek to understand how these divisions of labor actually functioned and how gain a deep level of understanding as to how work was actually parceled and finally funneled into the manufacturing process - It didn't take me very long to draw up a series of my own formulations which I was able to test in the virtual environment to see how robust these labor linkages would perform under a given set of conditions. I admit that due to lack of expertize, I may have simplified a few of my theorems or even decided to elide large chunks for the benefit of those who may be more brilliant that I - though I sincerely doubt it - however, allow me to stress to you, my model did work. In short Paglia, this was why and how I developed it.
Darkness 2007
Posted by Darkness | December 13, 2007 7:13 PM
Good Day Sirs,
Conflict and enquiry are inseparable twins. Having hatched a bold theory and proposing to test it, researchers must unfortunately convince their peers that their idea is better than the prevailing one. This I am reminded from perusing this thread is often a painful business - and one fraught with considerable personal risk to reputation.
It is clear to me, Darkness theory proposes to explode an orthodoxy as how we may wish to see the whole business of pursuing high end research in Singapore.
While I believe aspiring researchers such a darkness should be expected to run the gauntlet of their peers (a viva of sorts) they should not have to regularly put up with the denigrating abuse which I frequently see here, including personal attacks on his mental health etc. Why the extreme views, just because he may have resorted to a model which to some may appear unconventional? Perhaps these people thought an experiment as simple as his must be wrong, only because they are expecting the answer to emerge by pursuing traditional lines of enquiries? Which I might add can only supply more of the same confirmations.Perhaps those who interpret his findings concerning the "arms race" and how it may be fashioned to even successfully explain much of the research strategy that is currently pursued are unused to seeing their pronouncements put to the test?
Whatever the reason, there can really be no excuse for this kind of treatment. This is not the first time that Bambi Darkness Bad Boy has been subjected to this sort of high brow ridiculing, I distinctly remember when he posit the whole idea of using MRP theory to make sense of the issue of apathy - he was subjected to the same rounds of personal insults.
There is certainly scope for conflict, but not this variety that we should encourage, only because it is dirty and the wrong kind.
Celia
Posted by Celia | December 14, 2007 3:05 PM
Dear Bambi Bad Boy (I don't like the moniker Darkness, it really gives me the creeps),
Pls be patient with me. I can't help feel all this search for a formula to best explain what A*Star is currently doing is rather self defeating. For example you mentioned the arms or space race as a way of rendering coherency to this sort of "wasteful diffusion of energy" (I don't really know why I believe you think of the current research efforts pursued by A*Star as wasteful as I can see many benefits in the long term even if they happen to be indirect in nature). I dont wish to come across as difficult but aren't we perhaps indulging essentially in a sterile debate that has all the elements of ending peremptorily at the very beginning? As all it does it lead us to a dead end? To paraphrase, why should the search for origin be even productive to this whole debate whether A*Star is or isnt engaged in some grand act of "diffusionism?"
I don't disagree Bambi, if we really searched hard enough, we would probably be able to account for probably how and why; the arms race may bear lessons to explain (and to even learn, so that we do not commit the same mistakes) much of the current research drive pursued by A*Star.
However, is it really so important to sift between the historical patterns i.e your arms or space race model for some logical endorsement of a preferred hidden pattern at work, when all it may be is simply an act of perpetuation, not necessarily the rational type either, but spontaneous unhinged even from all rational form, diffused and even the variety that obviates all recourse to violence and anything to do with the arms race.
What if the arms race was just two kids throwing mud at each other? With the view, what you can do I can better. What if this whole A*Star enterprise is not so different? Then what possible use is it to even model it, since perpetuation is not rational, wouldn't it be futile to even attempt sifting through the sands?
Do be nice.
Celia
Posted by Celia | December 15, 2007 12:59 PM
Understand this. It is not wrong to assume when one remarks the entire research effort undertaken by A*Star can only be expected to yield indirect results, this amounts to nothing short of vulgarization of logic. The question you are asking me, if I may be permitted to paraphrase is; what is the point for me to even draw analogies between the arms race and what A*Star is trying to accomplish?
That would of course depend on whether I believe the term 'perpetuation' necessarily includes a strategic imperative or is it something that is haphazard like wild grasslands giving way to the desertification?
This is where I believe, you really need to unlearn many things Cellia bfr you can even buy into my logic, as I do not believe there is such a thing as 'perpetuation for perpetuation sake,' to me that's just means these ppl really need to read up on the history of Alchemy - the futility of attempting to transmute lead to gold! (I can prove it why it cannot work, but that's another story). As that concept denies the whole idea of impetus along with catalyst, cause and effect and probably a thousand other drivers that may influence an expected outcome - in the same way, I don't believe the wooden wheel gave way to the modern pneumatic vulcanized tire because it was merely a logical evolutionary extension. In truth, what precipitated its inception isn't so different from why dinosaurs eventually morphed into birds, it had a lot to do with external factors and the whole business of maximizing resources - here external conditions exert a gravity on form that determines its function / so if we really look at it from that standpoint, the rubber tire was an accretion of mass production specifically standardization and not purely the need to fulfill the criteria of speed alone (note: the first jet plane was constructed wholly out of timber!). Here Cellia, knowing precisely where one idea peels off and starts assuming a form and trajectory is very key to understanding why this issue cannot be reasonably answered without a complimentary model - if you miss it part, then it is finished, we all go back to Singapore Angle self styled discussion abt how many scientist can fit on a pin head! And your guess is as pertinent as mine - a hall of mirrors as you correctly described.
Now Celia you could just as well take this simple formulation and apply it to successfully explain how sail power bowed out to steam and why breech loading rifles gave way to the semi-auto armalite. My point is this: ONLY by understanding the catalyst for change can you aspire to gain an intimacy with the constraints (which incidentally also sets your maximum speed, so its your limiter) and develop the means to monopolize it. If you try to put the cart bfr the horse, then we will all have to contend with silly proclamations like it is for 'indirect' benefit - then we might as well pack up our bags and go back home. The curtains come down, the show is over!
This brings into sharp focus; what then is the best way to make sense of this trilogy between catalyst, constraints and trajectory? / bear in mind, if you propose to monopolize any 'skill of arms' to carve out competitive advantage doesn't matter if it is to be an A grade student or managing a research org like A*Star - there are only these 3 buttons to twiddle around with. In the same way, the Romans were able to establish Imperial dominion not by force of arms, ramrod discipline or even numerical superiority, but because they mastered the civil engineering which enable them to weather proof roads which allowed to maximize a given set of resources to opportunities i.e they successfully eliminated their constraints or bottlenecks = force multiplication. Same formulation with the British, they established their dominions not through the civil service, but by perfecting the 'skill of arms' in naval power, once again by leveraging on their long reach, they circumvented the physical constraints of time and distance imposed upon them as an island nation. In the case of the Americans it was space. In every practical definition of the word, the arms race model is merely a means to understand how firms and countries are able to successfully fashion the status quo ante that influences every quadrant of the competitive game, you could even apply this same formula to even make sense of what A*Star is trying to accomplish, but you first need to throw out the myth of that it was all for some fuzzy 'indirect' goal first - you don't throw out, its no good - the model just doesn't come around.
Chew on this, you need to excuse me for a while, I need to start marinating a turkey, I am cooking for the boys, we just finished a 80 km bike trip, when I return we will crank the model with a case study and hopefully, that will add to your learning outcome as you will appreciate why the model needs to occupy the main montage of this entire debate, if we serious seek to gain a deeper level of intimacy with what is obviously a very complex subject.
Darkness 2007
Posted by Darkness | December 15, 2007 4:05 PM
Please do some research before you write so many words here. If you know very little about scientific research then no matter how much you write, you are just showing your ignorance. If you have done any postgraduate work at a local university, you will understand the level of research is so low in most of the labs here. Do Ph.D. here and contribute to science in Singapore? LOL, there is no science in SG, just money.
Posted by PHD | December 16, 2007 8:11 AM
"PHD:
Please do some research before you write so many words here. If you know very little about scientific research then no matter how much you write, you are just showing your ignorance. If you have done any postgraduate work at a local university, you will understand the level of research is so low in most of the labs here. Do Ph.D. here and contribute to science in Singapore? LOL, there is no science in SG, just money."
This defines the reason why, no real discourse can really progress very far in Singapore Angle. Take a long look, it's a microcosm of the sign of our times and this also means we will probably not amount to very much as a nation - can you all see how every time I try to forward a theory, it is subject to the same harrying? Do you all see how my ideas has been subject to ridicule again? Do you all see now that when I say, I have to contend with personal attacks, this is very much a matter of fact, first they will ignore you, if that doesn't work, they will bring you down with whatever means possible - I call this the empire of the bones. Take it from me, it requires skill to successfully navigate through the sea of the dumb> Fortunately, I gathered this early in life, so I developed the discipline of brevity where often I believed it is best to allow a fool his day and even support it knowing full well it will only lead to one outcome. Many will cite me as particularly vicious and manipulative even, but even you will be surprise how little effort it takes for a man to cultivative such a bent. You see, I have come to see the world in such prosaic terms only because I remain convinced this is the only way for a fool to come to terms with the error of his ways - knowledge cannot be freely offered to the proud - they will abuse it. It will command no value if that were the case and the vital property which imbues it with power will diminish.
Regrettably, this is the same reason why we will have to stop here and reflect very deeply on the error of our ways.
Darkness 2007
Posted by Darkness | December 16, 2007 10:31 AM
I have come across men like him bfr, the same type, I mean. They always lunch by themselves, not the talky or pally type, part but apart at the same time, not rude, but not friendly either, belonging yet aloof. I have always wondered why they are so different, maybe it comes from having seen what happens to those who goes against the system. After a while, they build up a hard outer shell, one always senses, they are holding back their brilliance, the flash of the eyes, the slight look of mischief, that seems to say it all. Yet despite these brief interludes, they seem quite harmless and even obliging enough to appear as stupid as the rest. What after can account for their willingness to even plan stupid plans to such perfection?
I know who you are Bambi Boy, you're the man who likes the view from his window.
Posted by cammomile | December 16, 2007 2:01 PM
one person screws up everyone suffers!
Posted by cammomile | December 16, 2007 4:09 PM
Any where between tmr and two weeks time, I will have to ask the question again. I know many of you are sick and tired of it by now - but trust me, it has to be this way.
I am very sorry, may I beg your patience.
Once I know the answer, I will promise you all, I will go away.
Yours Respectfully
Darkness
Get Bernard Leong and Kevin Lim ready.
Posted by Darkness | December 17, 2007 7:43 PM
What a let down. I really hate it when the ending just goes "puffffffffffff." Might as well not start in the first place, I was very much looking forward to the clincher, but as we can all see, it simply didn't produce the Bang!
Posted by A*Star Mistress | December 20, 2007 12:44 PM
If discourse has ever changed anyone's mind we would all be philosophers sitting around a table, sipping tea and talking things through. Sadly, each person seeks to impose his/her will upon another (Der Wille zur Macht), myself included. In the face of imperfect information, arguments are little different from sophistry.
Posted by The Virus | December 27, 2007 1:44 AM
The Virus,
As it turns out, there is at least one philosopher among us. :-) Discourse doesn't necessary have to change minds. Some people are seriously quite happy sipping tea and talking things through. The more endemic problem is that some people are simple incapable of discourse to begin with. :-P
Posted by Kway Teow Man | December 28, 2007 1:43 AM
KTM: Agreed. The quick descent into free-for-all's is all too familiar a sight for anyone who has participated in (supposedly contemplative) public fora
Posted by The Virus | December 28, 2007 10:48 AM
This is a pity. I had hoped to learn and gather something from all this to improve my general knowledge. Perhaps PHD would be so kind to enlighten us? However, I sincerely doubt it, empty vessels only know how to make alot of noise. They are really good for nothing.
Posted by thistlewood | December 29, 2007 2:06 PM
I agree this is very sad. I was also hoping this matter could have been brought further to light. As the author did a very good job of highlighting the issues, but it was far from being exhaustive.
I personally felt this write up could have benefited from a higher score on the conceptual as to what AStar is really trying to establish.
I noticed that every time Darkness writes he is subjected to same run of the mill third degree treatment. I really wonder why only he seems to get this special attention. They dont seem to attack him on the merit of his case either. Instead it is always a personal attack that is either designed to marginalize or render him incoherent and ineffective.
When one cuts off the head what can the body do? Except run around like a headless chicken. What I wonder happens after that?
Bye Bye Singapore Angle and Happy 2008 Greetings to all.
Posted by Perm Sec | December 29, 2007 3:48 PM
"PHD:
Please do some research before you write so many words here. If you know very little about scientific research then no matter how much you write, you are just showing your ignorance. If you have done any postgraduate work at a local university, you will understand the level of research is so low in most of the labs here. Do Ph.D. here and contribute to science in Singapore? LOL, there is no science in SG, just money.
Posted by PHD | December 16, 2007 8:11 AM"
I dont want to come across as rude, but PHD could you pls stand in and pick up from where darkness left out. I for one really wanted to hear it all bear out, but due to your wise cracking we are none the wiser, so can you pls step up?
Posted by louhan | January 3, 2008 12:21 PM
It would be nice if someone could step up to the podium and cont the lecture. I just seems like such a waste really.
Bye. Happy new year.
Posted by green rover | January 4, 2008 1:47 PM
on the acc of one, all suffer - what does it say abt bambi? I wonder?
Posted by LO | January 6, 2008 4:08 PM
Anyone know about the NUS Overseas Gradaute Scholarship or the NTU Overseas Scholarship that come with a bond to serve at NUS or NTU after graduation?
Posted by Takena | February 5, 2008 11:17 AM
One remarkable lady on NSS-PhD scholarship:
Ms Tracey Ho
She did not serve any bond at AStar or as a tutor at NUS in Singapore. She's now a professor at Caltech from Day One upon PhD graduation from MIT. Good for her. What a fool Philip Yeo, he only knows how to hammer the same old man Hector Yee, who is equally bright. I think both LKY and Philip need to hammer each other for a good start.
Posted by yp | July 27, 2008 10:54 AM