SkillsFuture course recommendations

[sharonkhoo]

00skyblue00\" post_id=\"2129472\" time=\"1708405733\" user_id=\"143605:

Exactly. I always thought that skillsfuture main objective is to help workers be ready for the uncertain employment outlook in the future. Upskill, learn new skill to progress in one's work life whether for near future or for retirement, to plan for some work to do during retirement etc. These should be differentiated from hobbies/lifestyle courses.

There can be another category for health/lifestyle and mental wellbeing courses, which aims at helping citizens/residents to be ready for the super ageing population in the future.

These two could be differentiated according to their respective objectives. Now, it's rojak.

As far as recall, it started as \"for work\", then additional things were added. Speaking as an ex-librarian, this sort of thing happens all the time. The collection grows, but no-one tries to keep it categorised and tidy. IT people think that \"full-text free-text\" searches are wonderful as they give you the maximum no. of results - but users and librarians know that it is not!

[00skyblue00]

slmkhoo\" post_id=\"2129439\" time=\"1708387325\" user_id=\"28674:

I agree that this distinction should be clearer. I have seen courses on the business side of things, but they get lost in the welter of other hits and are hard to pull up because of poor/non-existent indexing (see my last para).

Although the word \"skills\" does make it seem that the focus should be on work, I think it's good for the government to provide these to encourage active aging and for seniors, or skills or hobbies in general. Also, for younger people, who knows how or when a hobby can be monetised to become \"work\"? But they should be marked in a way that makes it clear what category they fit in.

I wish SkillsFuture would get someone from NLB to look into cataloguing and indexing the courses so they can be searched more easily. Full-text searching only works when there are few hits for each search, not when the search yields hundreds of hits, with few ways (or no instructions how) to narrow the searches.

Agree. Not easy to search.

I also thought the curation could be more wholesome rather than single entity.

[00skyblue00]

So, courses under different categories economics productivity vs health/lifestyle/mental wellbeing can be paid under different "wallet" ?

Mom vs moh vs msf.

In accounting terms, would it matter which "wallet" would the courses be paid under?

[lee_yl]

bbbay\" post_id=\"2129438\" time=\"1708385175\" user_id=\"175278:

If I may, my perspective

The full fees of both NTUC LH and private provider are similar at around $600. both charge the same. If we believe NTUC fee as the right market rate , the private provider is charging the market rate too. And both should have the same cost to cover.

SFC can be used with both providers. If we are to look at level of SFC subsidy, NTUC LH will receive around $170 where as the private provider will receive $300. Private provider receives more than NTUC LH.

G offers community subsidies (citizen/PR status, age subsidies) to students attending courses at NTUC LH (G pay to NTUC) whereas G does not offer community subsidies to students attending courses with that private provider.

In term of total subsidy, students with NTUC are receiving $600 total subsidy from G (community subsidies+ SFC) whereas private provider is receiving $300 (SFC) subsidy from G

The private provider does not enjoy more benefits from the G than NTUC LH. And it charge the same as NTUC and have the same cost to cover. It is the students have to pay more out of pocket to the private provider. If both’s revenue still stay same (NTUC receives it via G subsidies and Private provider receive it via STC and students’ out of pocket) and cost are the same, then private provider will not have more profit benefits than NTUC LH, from anyone.

I believe private providers are to mainly serve the foreigners. And G total subsidies are much less to them than to G linked organisations .

Ok, I can see where you are coming from.

NTUC LH charges $600+ while the private training centre also charges a similar rate for a similar course outline.

$600+ is what a foreigner will be paying but since Skills Future is for Singaporeans only, the price differential is weird and opens up the opportunity for arbitrage.

What if I set up a company call KSP Cleaning, when one Singaporean auntie 40yo sign up for my toilet cleaning course at $580, I fill in her particulars and sign her up at NTUC LH for $172.80. Then I apologise profusely to the auntie that my classes are full and had coordinated with another school for her training. Since the outline of the course is similar, the auntie won’t notice

[00skyblue00]

lee_yl\" post_id=\"2129449\" time=\"1708392445\" user_id=\"17023:

Good idea!!

A lot of aunties went to learn how to bake cookies, make Baos because the (commission-based?) promoters kept pushing them, telling them it’s G’s money, why don’t you utilize it. Majority of them has no intention to become Bao maker at factories after attending the Skills Future Bao making course.

There should be a mechanism to motivate (aka force) the participants to progressively upgrade themselves.

Say, make Baos or bake cookies courses belong to Group 1 (Basic). After completing group 1, the participant must choose a related course from Group 2 (Intermediate), such as food safety, hygiene or packaging course. After which, the participant can only choose a related course from Group 3 (Advanced) which is how to set up home based business, digital marketing etc.

Cannot keep learning for fun sake like bake cookies, make Baos, make kueh… just for fun. I agree one should proceed on to the next level and use the acquired skills for productive economic purposes.

Tap on the above.

One way can be, if basic skill course can be first paid by worker for certain x% (with 1-x% paid by SF) and x/2 be returned only if worker continue level 2 and x/2 be returned after level 3.
:siam:

[sharonkhoo]

00skyblue00\" post_id=\"2129476\" time=\"1708407486\" user_id=\"143605:

So, courses under different categories economics productivity vs health/lifestyle/mental wellbeing can be paid under different \"wallet\" ?
Mom vs moh vs msf.

In accounting terms, would it matter which \"wallet\" would the courses be paid under?

I don't really care about the accounting - I think keeping it all under SF is fine. My grouse is that it's so difficult to narrow down to specific types of courses - why would someone wanting to be a professional baker have to scroll through pages of courses which are targeted at hobby bakers? And why should someone who want to learn \"for fun\" have to scroll through pages of professional level courses?

Another example is a word like \"editing\". Anyone who wants to look for a course on book editing has to navigate a long list of courses for video editing, photo editing, audio editing...

[starlight1968sg]

oh, am the odd one out as I prefer non-work related activities.

[00skyblue00]

Different pay master has different kpi.

End of the day, how to measure the effectiveness of these SF courses in helping workers to progress or find new means in earning income vs those health/lifestyle courses in keeping people fit and active.

Or the measures are only the take up rate?? Hmmm…

[sharonkhoo]

00skyblue00\" post_id=\"2129490\" time=\"1708411531\" user_id=\"143605:

Different pay master has different kpi.
End of the day, how to measure the effectiveness of these SF courses in helping workers to progress or find new means in earning income vs those health/lifestyle courses in keeping people fit and active.

Or the measures are only the take up rate?? Hmmm...

There are different tranches of SF credits. I'm sure they can monitor those which are intentionally to improve work skills or employability based on the type of courses taken.

[starlight1968sg]

Rem quite some time ago, there were some service providers which simply claim the credits …