Lack of drive in Singaporean students a worry

[concern2]

verykiasu2010:

anecdotes from some investment bankers :


young grads on new job to analyse the IPO performance and don't know how to calculate ex-right price of a stock, and use the financial calculator wrongly some more :mad: ....... can't even derive the answer from first principle ..... and asked from the boss : do you have a template ?.... :rotflmao: :rotflmao: template graduates :roll: :roll:

:rotflmao: Wow, that's even more new-age - TEMPLATES!! Next up - got Apps for that?

[concern2]

On a more serious note - how did the graduates manage to graduate in the first place??? :?


Linking this to what I heard from a lecturer in a poly, the institutions these days give passes to students even though their foundations are not up to standard or it reflects badly on the lecturer/HOD. Hence by the time they got to him at the higher level, he has a hell of a time cos they hardly understood what he was talking about. :faint:

Oh yeah, now that I recollect, he also mentioned only a handful are truly self-motivated and needed no pushing...

[Laura02]

I find the lack of discussion in this thread very worrying.


To me, the implied message behind the whole arrticle was that many Singaporeans will not rise to senior management positions because of their attitude. That these senior positions will go to FT.

Is our aim for our children then only for them to do brilliantly well in school, but only achieve middling success in the workplace?

And if all these "high achiever" go on to staff our civil service … sigh!

[Chenonceau]

Schools motivate children by terrorising them with failure. That is the best way to kill drive.


Teachers manage students with scoldings more than praise. Again, another good way to kill drive.

In the exam-oriented set-up, only the top 10 of the top 2 classes out of 10 classes of 40 students feel validated by their efforts (i.e., 20 out of 400 students). 380 students know and learn to accept that they’re not at the top and will never be. Also no drive.

Why bother Mom, I’m never gonna be one of the smart ones?

[concern2]

Laura02:

I find the lack of discussion in this thread very worrying.


To me, the implied message behind the whole arrticle was that many Singaporeans will not rise to senior management positions because of their attitude. That these senior positions will go to FT.

Is our aim for our children then only for them to do brilliantly well in school, but only achieve middling success in the workplace?

And if all these \"high achiever\" go on to staff our civil service .... sigh!

Laura02, it is not inconceivable.

Many of our students are not self-driven because many parents are using the over-drive for them all the time.

But of course, there could be other reasons too..

That said, I've just posted in another thread that touches on GEP (Intellect or Age Peer?), and I can't help linking to this article about students lacking drive. Here is the post:

concern2:

I can't help linking this thread to the one about how Singaporean students lack drive. Say, the GEP started in 1984 - for P4 students was it? Let's just assume it is. This means by now, the earliest children who have gone through the existence of this system would be about 38 years old now - already working, and possibly in the peak or climbing their way up. From what I've observed around, this age group still seem pretty \"kut latt\" - hardworking.

Usually when a new policy/system has just begun, you don't see immediate changes in people/ society. I'm not a sociologist, but assuming by the 10th year, people would have gained enough information, adjusted themselves, or their children would have come of age to enter the new system for it to have any impact - or what I call 'twisted effect' (results not initially intended for)

So 38 minus 10, the kids would be about 28 years of age. Let's give it a period of another 5 years down - Age 23 to 28. They will be working adults, maybe, gone through army, yes, some maybe still be pursuing higher studies perhaps? Or graduating soon... Is this the age group that we see has less drive? How is their working attitude? Ok, now that I am touching on the topic of 'drive', maybe I should also post on the other thread..

If you wish to talk about GEP/other education related, please continue here. And if you wish to write about 'drive', please write in the other thread:http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31534&p=703483#p703483

Ok, I must also say at this point that I am not blaming the GEP for causing the lack of drive in students, or that our education system is the only reason for lack of drive. I am trying to point out the fact that GEP may result in parental drive that ends up in lack of drive in students.

[kitty2]

Chenonceau:

Schools motivate children by terrorising them with failure. That is the best way to kill drive.


Teachers manage students with scoldings more than praise. Again, another good way to kill drive.

In the exam-oriented set-up, only the top 10 of the top 2 classes out of 10 classes of 40 students feel validated by their efforts (i.e., 20 out of 400 students). 380 students know and learn to accept that they're not at the top and will never be. Also no drive.

Why bother Mom, I'm never gonna be one of the smart ones?

:goodpost:

[cnimed]

I think drive and motivation are also shaped by parents. if the message from both schools and parents are - do well in school and you can get a good job and a good life - naturally for all the rest that falls below the academic elite tier, it is easy to be discouraged and even give up early. If the way to get into the elite tier is to study to the test, naturally many (not all) in this tier will be risk averse and narrow in outlook.


The syllabus is not everything. Societal message accounts for a lot. When I speak to my neighbors, many do not understand what I mean when I say it is important for children to cultivate their hobbies and strengths, not just focus on the weaknesses. after a while, they just nod politely at me, keke.

Is it really necessary to get into the elite schools? Does not getting into elite schools somehow mean failure? Hence the pursuit for 260 and above for PSLE? 4 points cut off for top JCs?

I think many of us have lost the plot, and the blame is not solely MOE. It’s fault is perhaps the success of a nanny state. Did so well that now it gets blamed for everything. MOE’s role is to educate the masses to achieve a minimum standard of knowledge base, provide a variety of pathways after PSLE. It has done that. It has created pathways too. It cannot help if 50 percent of the student population is aiming to get into the top tier. Attempt for differentiation leads to increased difficulty levels and competition.

The so called lack of drive in students is a result of our collective society’s mindset. It is hard to go against the tide, but we should all take a step back to gain some perspective.

[cnimed]

Alamak, sorry so many typos, but I can’t scroll the window in iPad, grrr…

[concern2]

deminc:

I think drive and motivation are also shaped by parents. if the message from both schools and parents are - do well in school and you can get a good job and a good life - naturally for all the rest that falls below the academic elite tier, it is easy to be discouraged and even give up early. If the way to get into the elite tier is to study to the test, naturally many (not all) in this tier will be risk averse and narrow in outlook.


The syllabus is not everything. Societal message accounts for a lot. When I speak to my neighbors, many do not understand what I mean when I say it is important for children to cultivate their hobbies and strengths, not just focus on the weaknesses. after a while, they just nod politely at me, keke.

Is it really necessary to get into the elite schools? Does not getting into elite schools somehow mean failure? Hence the pursuit for 260 and above for PSLE? 4 points cut off for top JCs?

I think many of us have lost the plot, and the blame is not solely MOE. It's fault is perhaps the success of a nanny state. Did so well that now it gets blamed for everything. MOE's role is to educate the masses to achieve a minimum standard of knowledge base, provide a variety of pathways after PSLE. It has done that. It has created pathways too. It cannot help if 50 percent of the student population is aiming to get into the top tier. Attempt for differentiation leads to increased difficulty levels and competition.

The so called lack of drive in students is a result of our collective society's mindset. It is hard to go against the tide, but we should all take a step back to gain some perspective.

I like your post.

Well said about \"I think many of us have lost the plot, and the blame is not solely MOE. It's fault is perhaps the success of a nanny state. Did so well that now it gets blamed for everything.\" It is so much like nannying our kids, don't you think? We do so much that we in the end get blamed for their lack of drive?

[UncleLim]

- Can I do my project in another way ?

- NO

- Can I go to the Science stream instead of the Arts stream ?
- NO

- Can I join this CCA instead of that CCA ?
- NO

- Can I go to Express instead of Normal ?
- NO

- Can I study Law instead of Business ?
- NO

- May I defer my NS for 2 years to do this project ?
- NO

- Can I work in this department instead of that department ?
- NO

- Can my startup company get this contract ?
- NO

- Can I use my HDB flat for this business ?
- NO

- May I modify my car to try out a new innovation ?
- NO

- Can I apply for this kind of loan ?
- NO

AND THEY ARE SURPRISED ABOUT THE LACK OF DRIVE ???!!! :slapshead: :slapshead: