Travelog - College Visits

Stanford.

Berkeley.

New York University.

Columbia University.

Princeton University.

These were the colleges we visited during our trip. We wanted to give our older boy a feel of these higher institutions of learning, since he will start his college applications process in the coming two years.

Columbia University

I know, I know...very lofty aspirations we parents have for our children, but hopefully, by showing our boys what's out there, they may be inspired to reach for the heights! Haha, just kidding. Seriously, these colleges are just a handful of so many excellent schools here in the US, not just Ivy Leagues, but also smaller & academically rigorous ones like Lehigh, Renselaar, Colgate, just to name a few.

Stanford - Corridors of learning

The ones we visited this time ranged from State universities (Berkeley) to private ones (NYU & Stanford) to traditional Ivy Leagues (Columbia & Princeton). All were excellent schools but had very different curricula with foci on different aspects of education. The Ivy Leagues tend to be more liberal arts-centric while the private universities had more professional courses to offer.

UC Berkeley

They all offered information sessions for students & parents, which outlined their curricula, admissions process (generally holistic although given the kind of applications they get, scoring at least 1400 in the SATs is the norm rather than the exception!) & financial aid. College costs are hefty - in these colleges, they were around the USD50K per annum ballpark. Hence schools which give a lot of grants & scholarships (to US citizens) like Stanford & NYU sound very attractive to us parents!

Campus tours were also useful in giving the potential students a sense of the size of the school as well as the atmosphere. For me, I found Stanford, located on over 8,000 acres of land (!) to be less "cosy" than Berkeley or Columbia, while NYU was very vibrant, since its buildings are not confined within the typical college campus, but rather, become part of the landscape of the Village in NYC. Basically, you step out of a school building on to the New York city sidewalk!

Columbia, with its old historical buildings & Grecian columns, had a very academic feel to it. For those looking for a good liberal arts curriculum, this is the place for you.

My personal favorite is Princeton. With a smaller campus than Columbia, it had a more homey feel to it, with the added plus of being surrounded by quaint neighborhoods & nice restaurants :). If I had to do it all over again, this would be my first choice (assuming that I could get in!!!)

Princeton - my favorite!

Impressions from China - I Beg Your Pardon?

...Chinglish...Singlish...
...Pidgin English...

To me, the common thread in the above 3 variations of "English" is the fact that it is, for the most part, incomprehensible to foreigners.

A typical example of a telephone conversation here in Beijing:

Customer Service:
"HellogoodmorningthisiscustomerserviceNancyspeaking!"

Me:
Uncertain pause...
"Uh, hello? Who's this again?"

Customer Service:
"HellogoodmorningthisiscustomerserviceNancyspeaking!Iamcallingaboutyourcomplaintaboutyourdoornotlockingproperly"

Me:
Another uncertain pause...
"Can you please repeat in Mandarin?" (spoken in Mandarin)

Not only do they tend to link every single word & every sentence together without any punctuation whatsoever, but add the Chinese accent to the mix & they might as well be speaking a foreign language altogether.

I admire the fact that many Chinese are learning English in an attempt to keep up with the rest of the world; and there are many who speak excellent English. But then there are those who are not quite up to par as far as spoken English is concerned, which leads to a lot of confusion when they attempt to do so, from the foreigners' point of view.

Similarly, many foreigners in Singapore (including family & friends of mine) who cannot understand the "English" spoken by the average man-in-the-street/waiter/salesperson in Singapore. And it saddens me to hear the repeated insistence by certain circles in Singapore that speaking Singlish should be something we should be proud of.

I don't think we should abolish Singlish. It is a unique "dialect" & instantly recognizable by fellow Singaporeans wherever you may be in the world. However, if the children of Singapore speak Singlish at the expense of knowing & speaking proper English, then it IS a problem.

MOE's introduction of teaching English to pre-school teachers is a good first step. I just hope that they are taught PROPER English, both written and spoken.

Pressure Cooker

So add more pressure, why doncha?

Kids are already struggling with having to learn two languages in school. I am not even talking about being able to speak proper English & proper Chinese. Because the English & Mandarin being spoken by the average Singaporean on the street is far from proper, or even proficient, in many cases. Non-Singaporeans have problems understanding the Singlish that passes off as English. And having lived in Beijing now for the last 8 months, I realize that the Mandarin I hear being spoken here in China is w-a-a-a-a-y different from the Mandarin I hear being spoken in Singapore!

So now, PM Lee talks about adding a 3rd language to the secondary school curriculum, with incentives for the students to take it up to get bonus points into JC.

More incentives to learn Malay at secondary school
Monday • August 20, 2007

The talk has long focused on the language skills necessary to engage China and, yesterday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke about the need to relate to the Malay-speaking region, too.

More incentives, he announced, will be dished out to encourage more Singaporeans to study Malay or Chinese — if it is not their mother tongue — as a third language.

Such secondary school students will soon enjoy two bonus points for junior college admission. Perks like these will be available to non-Malays who sign up for the Malay Special Programme (MSP) and non-Chinese students in the Chinese Special Programme.

The MSP has had a poor take-up rate since it was launched in 1985 for top Primary School Leaving Examination students to learn the Malay language and the cultural heritage of Malays. It remained unpopular despite being extended this year to all Secondary 1 students.

Mr Lee said that while many older Singaporeans spoke and understood Malay, "too few" of the younger generation did.

While the current mother tongue policy would not change, he said, it was important to learn Malay or Bahasa Indonesia to facilitate interaction with our Southeast Asian neighbours. As such, a Regional Studies Programme — where students take Malay as a third language and learn about South-east Asia — will be rolled out in three or four secondary schools. A hundred scholarships will be offered to sweeten the deal, he added.

"It would be good if one of the schools can offer Bahasa Indonesia. I understand … one school is already interested," said Mr Lee.

Civil servants, too, will be incentivised. Ministry of Foreign Affairs officers already get a language allowance if they maintain a good grasp of languages to do their work better and this will be extended to more agencies that have extensive contact with other countries. — Lee U-Wen


Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.

I am all for learning a 2nd or 3rd or heck, even a 4th language, IF THE PERSON LEARNING IT ACTUALLY LIKES & APPRECIATES THE LANGUAGE HE OR SHE IS LEARNING.

There has been some debate in the ST Forum section lately over the teaching & learning of a second language (specifically Mandarin) in school & I have previously blogged about it.

So before PM Lee or Minister Tharman endorses this new policy, I hope they first look into how languages are taught in Singapore schools before piling on more pressure on the already highly-pressured educational system in Singapore.

Learning Mandarin

This writer has it spot on:

30 July,ST Forum

Review mother tongue as success path in school

MR KELVIN Chia's view that 'a certain degree of regurgitation is not only well placed, but also very necessary' for language acquisition is a perception that needs to be debunked ('Current system may not be the problem'; ST, July 23).
The ability to regurgitate words and phrases simply proves a student's good memory but does not necessarily reflect ability to understand or appreciate the context of their use - a fundamental aspect of effective language acquisition.
With the dynamic nature of challenges ahead, rote learning cannot be the order of the day in schools.
Mr Chia also likens the teaching of Mandarin to that of English. The process of acquiring English as described by him is not in line with current best practices.
Backed by research, enlightened preschools in Singapore and many parts of the world have moved away from spelling lists and teaching the alphabet through repeated writing.
Pedagogy has evolved to focus on the development of long-term appreciation and love of the language.
By suggesting it 'makes better sense to promote the use of Mandarin at home than to adjust the current system', Mr Chia assumes every parent is effectively bilingual and able to speak Mandarin fluently.
The truth is many lost touch with Mandarin once they left school, for the simple reason that the working world is English-speaking and the language of business is predominantly English. Hence the language of choice for most is English.
This is a point acknowledged by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew when he cited the example of his children's choice of English as their predominant language even though they were educated in Chinese-medium schools.
Those who attempt to keep up their Mandarin proficiency inevitably end up peppering their speech with words and phrases in English, Singlish and dialects.
To speak Mandarin at home, as Mr Chia proposes, is in effect more detrimental than beneficial.
So many parents are unable to help their children tackle Mandarin at the pace and standards set by the Ministry of Education. The solution for a long time has been to engage private tutors but this should not be perpetuated.
Past approaches have failed to produce a generation of Singaporeans who can remain sufficiently fluent in Mandarin beyond their school years. We cannot afford to make the same mistake with the next generation.
It is time to review the criteria of mother-tongue proficiency as a requisite and determinant for progress in our education system.

Jocelyn Lim Chieh Ying (Mdm)

Fact: The average Singaporean does NOT speak proper Mandarin. And I am not just talking about the accent; but when I ride the MRT & listen to the surrounding "Mandarin speakers"conversing, I hear a Chinese sentences with liberal sprinklings of English words & even Singlish colloquailisms, as described by Ms Lim.

Fact: Students from English-speaking homes have been having trouble with learning Mandarin since my school days (back in the 70's & 80's). No matter what changes in policies & pedagogy have been applied by MOE, it did not & does not seem to be working, as evidenced by the groans & moans of my friends who have kids in Primary school. Mandarin has become the bane of their lives. Their kids hate learning it, & probably spend more time on trying to pass tests/spelling/exams than on any other subject.

Fact: Yes, Mandarin is an important language to learn, given China's economical growth & potential. No one is disputing this at all. But KNOWING that it is important does not make learning the language any easier.

I am sure that MOE is aware of what I have stated & what Ms Lim has said. My question is: why the reluctance to re-look & possibly re-vamp the whole approach to this problem (and yes, it IS a problem). Why don't we hear the same complaints from the Malays or the Indians whose children learn Malay & Tamil as a second language? Someone should analyse these differences & figure out what's wrong (& what's right) about the teaching of second language in Singapore.

The Calling

June 6, 2007; ST Forum
To raise professional standards, perhaps law and medicine should be postgraduate courses

I WANT to thank Mr George Lim Heng Chye for highlighting the importance of professionals adopting high ethical standards and values in the discharge of their duties ('Vital that we reinforce good industry practices to uphold our clean image'; ST Online Forum, June 6).

The Singapore Medical Council (SMC) has a clear Ethical Code that 'represents the fundamental tenets of conduct and behaviour expected of doctors practising in Singapore. The Ethical Guidelines elaborate on the application of the Code and are intended as a guide to all practitioners as to what SMC regards as the minimum standards required of all practitioners in discharge of their professional duties and responsibilities in the context of practice in Singapore'.

Since the days of the old Raffles College and King Edward VII College (a forerunner of the National University of Singapore) in the 1920s, the then college accepted Upper Sixth graduates and later GCE A-level holders in its medical school to pursue a medical course. Likewise the Law Faculty accepted Higher School Certificate (HSC) and now A-level holders in its law school.

Perhaps the admission committee and selection board of our local universities need to make a paradigm shift in admission criteria from their erstwhile and present policy of admitting young A-level holders and polytechnic graduates to law and medical schools in view of the rogue lawyers and wayward doctors who have surfaced recently.

In this regard, it would be good to study the criteria United States universities have adopted in admitting students to their law and medical schools. To be considered for admission to study for the Juris Doctor degree, an applicant must have a bachelor's degree awarded by a regionally accredited US college or university or equivalent degree from a recognised non-US institution. He must also have taken the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) within the past three years.

Most Ivy League universities require candidates to be well versed in a wide range of subjects, such as English, philosophy, mathematics, government, history, economics, literature, sociology, psychology, natural sciences and the classics. This is because these non-law subjects are all believed to provide exposure to intellectual tasks encountered in the study of law.

Competition to get into law school is intense as each year there are more applicants than places. Law schools usually look for specific courses in the applicant's transcript (political science, philosophy, sociology and history). However, they are more interested in the well-rounded individual than the young specialist. Some law schools also look for applicants with quantitative courses such as economics, business, mathematics and finance. The thinking is that once out of law school, the graduate will deal with the business world daily and will need to understand it thoroughly.

US medical schools usually look for applicants who have clearly demonstrated an aptitude in the biological and physical sciences but not to the exclusion of the humanities and social sciences. Applicants need good passes in biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, expository writing (writing skills are deemed important for the study and practice of medicine) and statistics.

Harvard Medical School states specifically that candidates must have 'completed at least 16 hours in literature, languages, the arts, humanities and the social sciences and become familiar with computers'. Most medical schools require applicants to be good in English (grade B or better) and 'English As a Second Language' is not acceptable.

Perhaps our local universities should make law and medicine a postgraduate course and only those with a first degree (including those from seminaries) need apply to these prestigious schools. Hopefully, a more stringent selection process and interview will reduce the number of unscrupulous professionals churned out by the universities in recent years.

Heng Cho Choon

I agree, to a certain extent, with what this writer has suggested about making medicine a postgraduate course. (Not being a lawyer, my comments refer only to Medicine). Not so much because I think it would "reduce the number of unscrupulous professionals churned out by the universities in recent years", but because I think that the tender age of 18 is too young for the average teen to make a firm decision about what he/she wants to do with the rest of his/her life.

I can almost hear the collective groans of doctors-to-be at the thought of an additional 4 years of undergraduate study before med school + residency +/- fellowship. I know there will be added cost, & with the so-called shortage of doctors in Singapore, it would take a longer time to train a fully qualified doctor.

However, I think that the additional pre-requisites of the humanities & social sciences would not only make for more well-rounded doctors, but the extra years of study would also add much needed maturity to potential doctors, & perhaps give them the chance to make the right decision with regards to their career path. At 18, many are still not emotionally mature; with the added years of studying something else in addition to the sciences, it could make the difference & produce doctors who can truly regard their profession as a calling.

Stirring up the Passion for Learning

I watched a debate about the pros & cons of a democracy vs. communism this morning. No, it wasn't a discussion among a group of adults about politics. It was by a bunch of 7th graders (13 & 14 year olds) in school as part of their year long class project called "City on the Sea".

The premise behind this project is for them to develop a whole new city from the "ground" up within the scenario of the polar ice caps melting & covering all the land on earth. They had to figure out how much space they would need for the population, how they would generate energy to run the city, what kind of government they would want for the city (hence today's debate) & so on & so forth. Math, Science, Social Studies are all covered in this project as well as public speaking skills (when they make their own presentations on different aspects of the project).

This is the kind of teaching in schools that will stimulate the students, & encourage their passion for learning. And it was passion I heard during the Q & A session at the debate as the students all voiced their questions & opinions about the kind of political system they would want to have in their city. Hands were shooting up left, right & center as so many wanted their voices to be heard. The teachers were there, not to criticise their opinions, but more as moderators to keep things moving along smoothly.

I think we can argue till the cows come home about which education system works best for whom & in what country...but end of the day, when I see the enthusiasm stirred up in these students & their eagerness to question what is placed before them, it's clear to me what works...and what doesn't.

Education

How will MOE or any of the local schools respond to this letter, I wonder?

March 17, 2007, ST Forum
Which school would students rather be in?

LET me contrast the approaches taken by an international school and an autonomous school in Singapore.
Guess which school offers customer-service orientation to parents and students (teachers respect students and do not scream at them); later-starting school hours; curriculum that allows learning to take place (teach less, learn more); good and motivated teachers; small class sizes; no pressure on students/staff to win accolades (the journey is more important than the destination); minimal homework and tests/exams; hiphop dancing exercise for PE and, best of all, cellphone and laptop usage.
Students and parents are welcome to see the teachers and the principal himself whenever possible - no bureaucratic system to block access, even the security is friendly.
The typical Singapore school's philosophy is that 'children should be seen and not heard'. The moment they arrive in school, they have to sit down quietly in the hall to read. During recess, there is no time to play. They are not allowed to talk in class (too noisy). Small wonder many do not grow up articulate and find school to be, at best, a forgettable experience.
Shoes, socks and hair pose no big issues in the international school (don't sweat the small stuff). Students are free to show individualism (and do they look good). But not the stern Singapore school - it wants the students to look like factory-produced robots. I do not think this is the only way to instil discipline. I recall the time I had to go out late at night to buy white school shoes with laces for my child (velcro not allowed).
Education should reflect changes in the workplace and society - including cellphone usage. Everyone is using cellphones everywhere, except in our conservative schools. How do you expect students to learn to use their phones properly in public if they are not allowed to do so in school? Education is also about teaching them responsible use of the phone during lessons.
Ultimately, it boils down to mindset and how a school manages the students. It is time for the local schools to loosen up.
By the way, ask the international school students if they are happy and the answer is an affirmative 'Yes'. The students also do reasonably well academically, in case you wonder.

Lam Mun Wai (Mdm)


Regular readers of my blog would know that one of my pet peeves is the Singapore educational system. Some of the issues have been highlighted by Mdm Lam: teachers’attitudes towards their students (perhaps not screaming at them, but stern all the same), expecting students to be “guai”& sit quietly listening to the teacher doing all the talking instead of an interactive learning environment, class sizes, the emphasis on results (i.e. exams/tests) instead of the learning process etc.

Will they cite cultural differences as an excuse for the different approach to education? The need for a strict dress/appearance code to instill discipline? Banning cellphones to avoid distractions?

Let’s see what they say…

Elitism?

This letter to the editor in today's newspaper gives a different perspective on the difference between the "elite" and "neighbourhood" schools locally. I have heard of similar views from a friend of mine whose child goes to one of these "elite" schools.

I had been grousing to her about my dissatisfaction with the education that my kids were getting in the local system, and had thought that perhaps, it was because they weren't in one of the "elite" schools that the quality was lacking. She then replied that the only difference between these schools & a neighbourhood school was that most of the kids in the elite had the resources available to them to go for extra tutoring & "enrichment" courses; hence they managed to get better grades in their exams.

It was certainly an eye-opener for me that the education system has changed so much from the time that we were in school till the present time. Come to think of it, I remember getting a phone call from my son's Chinese teacher when he was in Pr 1, asking if he had anyone tutoring him in Chinese. At the time, being newly from the US, I had naively thought that putting a 6 year old child through extra classes outside of school was ridiculous, so had resisted doing so. The teacher had been shocked when I said no, & insisted that I should engage a tutor for him, as it was not possible for her to bring his grasp of the language to the acceptable standard without outside help.

Which brings me to the next question: if the teachers themselves think that they are unable to teach a child adequately & requests for the child to get extra tutoring, and if schools ROUTINELY schedule remedial/supplementary classes in addition to the normal school hours, does that not mean that something is not right with the system???

And another thing...I wonder why these "elite schools" tend to be grouped in districts where the affluent live? I know of at least 3 "neighbourhood" schools which have been displaced from their previous locations within these affluent districts (they still maintain their original names a couple of which were taken from the street names where they were located), & their sites taken over by the "elite" schools. Another form of social engineering, hmmm?

Learning English

This letter in today's newspaper reiterates the point I was trying to make in a previous post.

Learning a language (be it English, Chinese, Malay or Tamil) is more than just filling in the blanks or multiple choice questions. Let's hope the folks in the Education Ministry realise it soon...

English Lit.

The movie adaptation of Jane Austen's "Pride & Prejudice" will hit the local cinemas in December. I have already asked a couple of my ex-schoolmates if they would be interested in coming along with me to watch this chick flick (hubby had resignedly said,"If you really want to watch it, I will accompany you." Sweet intentioned that he is - hee hee - I won't submit him to the torture of sitting through 2 hours of Jane Austen's dialogue).

Reason why I am so keen to watch this is because I remember reading this book for English Literature, one of my favorite subjects in Secondary school. What made it even more fun was that some of us were assigned "roles" (characters) from the book, & we read out the dialogue as if we were acting out the book in a play. Reading this book brings back many enjoyable memories of reading & learning to appreciate the beauty of words & what emotions some words can evoke in me. I remember reading Poetry which could stir up emotions in me that I never knew existed!

Admittedly, Jane Austen's austere & rather long-winded writing style frustrates me immensely at times; and yet, I am still drawn to reading her books (as a matter of fact, I have all her novels); perhaps I am a masochist! I even have some of the previous movie adaptations (Sense & Sensibility, Emma) as well as the TV series version of Pride & Prejudice in which Mr Darcy was played by a rather wooden Colin Firth (highlighted in Bridget Jones' Diary).

Literature is no longer a compulsory subject in local schools, which is a pity. It is a shame that many of our children will not know writings of Shakespeare or Bronte or Austen, nor the poetry of Yeats or Keating. It is obvious that the standard of written & spoken English locally has deteriorated tremendously in the last decade or so. Someone in the Ministry of Education should realise that the study of a language does not comprise solely of filling in the blanks of Cloze passages (what the h*** does Cloze mean anyway??? Can't find it in any respectable dictionary!) & answering multiple choice questions. Children need to be exposed to the different forms of writing & not only will they grow to appreciate the power of language, but at the same time learn so much more about the world around us.

When my older son first transferred to the international school system after spending 5 years in the local system, he struggled with Reading & Language. Yes - this despite the purported high standard of English in the local schools. He realised that what he had been doing previously was just skimming the surface. In his new school, he had to actually read books, analyse paragraphs, and learn to use different tools in writing. It took him a couple of months to change his mindset as far as learning the language was concerned. And it is only recently that I see a change & vast improvement in his language skills when he had to review a poem (below) by Langston Hughes called "A Dream Deferred".

Not bad for a 13 year old, eh?

A Dream Deferred:
Why it’s Memorable

“A Dream Deferred” by Langston Hughes is very memorable because of its vivid, detailed imagery. His use of pauses and hyphens causes the desired, unsteady beat to create stress in the poem. For example, he put “Harlem” at the beginning, asks a question, and he has an off-beat question at the end and they all don’t follow any steady rhythm like the middle of the poem does. He probably did these things in this poem to show that a dream deferred is random and out of place. Hughes also used harsh “st” sounds and “s” alliterations to create undesirable images and slithering, flowing sounds to show slyness. For instance, he wrote, “Or fester like a sore – And then run?” this creates an ugly or even painful image of a sore in the reader’s head. Another example: he wrote, “Or crust and sugar over – like a syrupy sweet?” which creates an encroaching, slithering manifestation of a rotting candy. Using all kinds of devices, Hughes creates a lasting impression in the reader’s mind.

Circumstances

My niece has been groaning & moaning about school & the system. She wants to join a school that offers the more well-rounded IB program but cost is a huge factor as my nephew is already attending it. Her mum can't afford to put both kids in there, & out of her 3 kids, My niece is "the one most likely to survive the local system". Unfortunately, this will probably mean that she will end up in the local uni with its straight laced programs & parroting form of learning. Hopefully she will choose to major in something that will allow her to widen her horizons after she graduates.

I feel melancholy when I heard the phrase in bold above, not that I fault my sister at all. But I was in the same position as my niece during my schooldays. As the "brainiac" of the family, I made it into JC & then in NUS. Not so for my sis & bro. Because of their "lesser" academic abilities, they were given the chance to pursue their studies overseas & in "alternative" albeit more expensive methods. My parents could not afford to do so for all of us.

Ironically, I found myself trapped in a system that did not encourage me to explore & stretch myself, & subsequently, followed the safe & tried route of becoming a well-respected professional. I can't say that I made the wrong decision in my choice of career, as I made the best decision I could given my circumstances & what was available to me at the time. But I want & hope that my own children will be given wider choices as they develop & find themselves. Hopefully, they will end up doing what they love & have a passion for, and be able to earn a living doing so.

Hence all the sacrifices that A & I are willing to put up with, in placing them in an excellent international school with a curriculum & teachers which even the local university would envy.

I can't help but find myself wondering "what if"...if I had been given the chance that my kids have now, would I be doing something that I passionately believe in & love? I guess I will never know...