[PSLE MT] PSLE less weightage in Chinese / Mother Tongue

[ChiefKiasu]

I only have 1 thing to say in this matter.


Let’s ask ourselves: How often in the last year have we applied what we have learnt in Science and Maths in Primary school in our work? When was the last time we had to draw math models to solve our workplace problems? And when did we need to submit a report to our bosses about the water cycle?

Next, ask ourselves: How many opportunities have we missed in the last year in either working in China or doing businesses where mastery of the Chinese language would have given us a great advantage? How many shows have we watched in Korean or Japanese that only have Chinese subtitles?

Finally ask ourselves, in the next 20 years, how will our answers to the above questions change. That will provide the answer to whether Chinese should be weighted lower than Science and Maths in our children’s examinations.

[minnie2004]

Excellent point Chief :celebrate:

[tree nymph]

:goodpost:


Chief.

hmmm, can you send this to ST Forum?

[minnie2004]

BlackAngel:

ha, i agree to one of the post, Set up a school called: I Hate Chinese secondary school. Those who select to go to this school no need to count chinese in PSLE. just need to use 3 subjects = 300 marks.


DSA Entry Condition: They must prove that they really hate the subject to the core and want to migrate overseas because of this subject. A medical visit to IMH is preferred. This group of losers (or you can call them bright sparks or elites) are given a new syllabus called CL H (H for hatred). They only need to know 3 phrases to pass CL H. 我恨华文， 我讨厌华文， 我不是华人。

:rotflmao:

And it's up to the future employers to decide whether they want to hire graduates from this school

[nan.014182nan]

ChiefKiasu:

Let's ask ourselves: How often in the last year have we applied what we have learnt in Science and Maths in Primary school in our work?

...

Next, ask ourselves: How many opportunities have we missed in the last year in either working in China or doing businesses where mastery of the Chinese language would have given us a great advantage?

I felt that what one learns in primary school is foundation. We don't, of course, use primary school maths model to solve work problem. However, Maths and Science trains the young mind on how to see things, formulate strategy to solve a problem.

Language, espcially mother language, at primary school level is also giving the child its foundation, of how to recognise a word a character (I am talking about Chinese now), the grammar, and finally how to express one's thought using that language.

To me, all these foundations are equally important. There can never be a right formula of weightage for these foundation subjects. Any attempt to alter it, would be seen as sending a wrong message, like now.

Does a mother decide vegetable is more important than meat ? or fish should be eaten more than egg ? We eat all food to have a balance healthy diet.

[Donkey Kong]

ChiefKiasu:

I only have 1 thing to say in this matter.


Let's ask ourselves: How often in the last year have we applied what we have learnt in Science and Maths in Primary school in our work? When was the last time we had to draw math models to solve our workplace problems? And when did we need to submit a report to our bosses about the water cycle?

Next, ask ourselves: How many opportunities have we missed in the last year in either working in China or doing businesses where mastery of the Chinese language would have given us a great advantage? How many shows have we watched in Korean or Japanese that only have Chinese subtitles?

Finally ask ourselves, in the next 20 years, how will our answers to the above questions change. That will provide the answer to whether Chinese should be weighted lower than Science and Maths in our children's examinations.

Think most of us don't want to lower weightage becoz CL is easy to score! A* :lol: statistics shows more than 75% pupils scored A* in CL.
:celebrate:

If CL standard raised till only 10% score A*, think many pple will vote otherwise. :lol:

Actually, our A* is no fight with Taiwan/China pple. Some of our staff go China, chinese language one-piece one piece ..... very tough.
Only the CL1 A level can match them.... :celebrate:

[ChiefKiasu]

Donkey Kong:

Think most of us don't want to lower weightage becoz CL is easy to score! A* :lol: statistics shows more than 75% pupils scored A* in CL.

:celebrate:

If CL standard raised till only 10% score A*, think many pple will vote otherwise. :lol:

Actually, our A* is no fight with Taiwan/China pple. Some of our staff go China, chinese language one-piece one piece ..... very tough.
Only the CL1 A level can match them.... :celebrate:

On the contrary, there are lots of people including myself with kids that are struggling with CL in school. That is the main reason behind MOE's call for the MT weightage to be lowered, since kids that don't do well in Chinese may not get to go to the better Secondary schools.

My point is simply that if the objective is to get the best students into the best schools so that they have the best chance of succeeding in later in life, then reducing weightage of CL in admission criteria may not achieve this objective since the conditions necessary for success in future careers will likely require a mastery of CL.

[Tnsp]

ChiefKiasu:

My point is simply that if the objective is to get the best students into the best schools so that they have the best chance of succeeding in later in life, then reducing weightage of CL in admission criteria may not achieve this objective since the conditions necessary for success in future careers will likely require a mastery of CL.

Yes.

Reducing the weightage of CL will not achieve this objective of them succeeding in later life, because things are made easy for them. They will get away with the idea that when things are difficult, ask for the easy way out.

It is so sad that the Education Minister failed to see this point.

[3Boys]

CKS,

I respectfully disagree with your analogy. There has been a brain-washing that is perpetuated around the absolute necessity of learning Chinese to be in a competitive situation in China. Does it help? Certainly. Is it a deal-breaker? Not in my experience. Conversely, companies in China will be foolish to limit themselves to deals with folk who can only speak the lingo. In fact, it is my view that as China becomes more like the rest if the world, this will become a progressively less important issue. I.e. I do not necessarily need to learn Russian to do business in Russia, or Portuguese to do business in Brazil. How many CEOs can claim a mastery of all languages of the countries that their affiliates are in? Also, by saying that Chinese language is essential for business linkages, do we then imply that our Malay and Indian compadres are therefore doomed to economic disadvantage and have no entry point into China?

One needs to consider what are some of the universal traits that will enable someone to be economically active, at the basic level. There are many Spaniards, Italians, Finnish, French and Japanese people who speak nothing other than their native language. Yet, they are able to be economically active within their countries, sometimes working for MNCs originating from those countries. Clearly, language proficiency in Chinese, or even English for that matter, is not a major requirement to be successful. However, you would be out on a limb if you did not know math, or some basic science. And of course, you had to have proficiency in the native language.

What is the native language of Singapore? I suppose you could say Singlish, but arguably the official policy (and also in practice), the language of business and transaction is English.

Should there then be a primacy of English over MT? I fail to see how you can argue that it not be so. Likewise Math…

…which is really the crux of what MOE is trying to say.


But again, its highly politicised, isn’t it?

[corneyAmber]

3Boys, I too have to beg to differ with you here.


I have to share some truths with you from a capacity where I have direct experience.

Many US/Europe-based MNCs have invested heavily in China but fail to be profitable for many years, some as many as over 10 years, believe it or not. They merely survive to make ends meet by using the profits from other regions.
Can they pull the plug and go? No, they still believe that it is a place you cannot NOT be there despite the poor returns and because they are known as MNC. What is an MNC without presence in China? chuckle

Internal post-mortem studies pointed to the fact that not knowing the language and rules were indeed a hindrance to their level of penetration in the market. Language is the basic barrier, then there are other barriers to break in that place and with the power of language, it would have been easier. Hiring LOCALs certainly DID NOT resolve the issue, many times it compounded the issues. So more and more foreigners are embarking on the learning of the Chinese language from young, that is the real world.