Asia spending billions on tutors: study

[ChiefKiasu]

Busymom:

Erm... I still have that post... maybe take a picture of it (or copy and paste) and post it here if the post is gone?

Can post here? I will copy it and append it to limlim's post.

Edit - Got it. Done. Thanks, Busymom!

[buds]

Ok.. I didn't say aaaanything abt grouchy arh..


And I definitely kept mum abt.. as to whether or not limlim is old or young at heart.

But as to whether man or babe.. limlim has been dodging that confirmation in threads... referring to spouse as the CO or significant other.

[wonderm]

:goodpost:

ChiefKiasu:

verykiasu2010:

...

It is ultimately a zero-sum game.

There is no denying the fact that better-off families have the decided leverage, especially if parents are willing to spare no expense in preparing their children for academic success.

Marietta Koh Ai-meng (Mrs)

http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_822962.html

And herein lies the conundrum. It is indeed a zero sum gain when analyzed at a macro level, outside of the environment. It's just like saying chemical energy stored in the petrol I buy will be converted into mechanical energy as I drive, so there really was no loss of energy (yes, I get my money's worth of mileage). But that fact is, that \"zero-sum gain\" has benefited someone, ie. me, by bringing me to places I want to go. It has also disadvantaged someone else from the air pollution, noise and traffic congestions I caused when I drove.

The government sees statistics. It doesn't see individuals. It must do so because it has to make policies that effectively benefits the country as a whole. Hence, when setting standards for education systems, it projects economic scenarios years into the future to identify the types of skills needed for the workforce at that time. That would tell us what kind of standards we need to set today to get to where we want tomorrow. This is what planning is all about, and few can argue against the sensibility of such a process.

Hence, we can be sure that the standards are set as they are today, not because of some random professor with a sadistic need to make children cry, but because of some projected future economic need. Yes, we may argue about the accuracy of the projection - no one can predict the future. We may even question whether the projections have taken into account social costs to society (we may be rich and successful, but we all live under barged fences fearful of what our neighbours may do to us). But we cannot allege that education standards are arbitrarily set high without basis.

As parents, we are all economic agents. We seek to maximize our own advantage. Who cares what my actions do to society as long as my children comes ahead in the end? You can label this as being kiasu, selfish, opportunistic... whatever, but it is the fundamental human nature that drives capitalism. An economy cannot flourishing if the government had not allowed the market forces (ie. opportunistic behavior) to work freely.

So we are all inside the \"zero-sum\" system, as opposed to MOE who is controlling the system. Blinded by our own self-interest, we seek to grasp at whatever advantage we can get for our children. If our children cannot make our expected \"standard\", we push even harder and complain about the high standards. So the question here is, who set the standards? The answer is simply: both MOE and parents.
- MOE sets the syllabus, and the criteria of measurement, baselined against their projection of future economic needs.
- Parents use MOE's standards, but baseline our standards to target the upper percentile of MOE's standards. Why? Because we are value maximising economic agents. And the higher we target, the higher the stress to ourselves.

So in this context, who is really to blame for state of affairs now? I will point the finger at Adam Smith's unseen hand of market forces. It is the cost of the free market, the cost of having freedom of choice. Tuition centres flourish now not because school teachers are unhappy and exiting to set up their own centres, but because there is great demand for them. The demand comes from parents' own expectations of how their children should fare in schools. The higher the expectations, the higher the demand. (Note that expectations could vary from parents simply wanting their underperforming children to pass, or wanting their overperforming children to excel. In my opinion, there is no difference between the two).

Let's suppose now that we decide to curb this \"trend\", by instituting regulatory control with the intention of providing equitable amounts of education given to every child in every cohort. This would be \"fair\" in the sense that every kid is given equal resources... but it will be inaccurate to say that this gives every child equal \"opportunity\". No child is alike in terms of cognitive and social capability. Slower children require more resources to bring them up to speed with the rest. Faster children would be held back and not given the opportunity to stretch themselves. Despite the \"fairness\" of resource allocation, no matter where we set the \"standard\", some children will benefit, others will suffer.

This is central planning. That's the stuff of communism. It has been demonstrated time and again that it does not work - that humans, when deprived of incentives to benefit themselves rather than the community, will just do enough to earn his allotted \"share\" of the resources. Without the incentive to outperform others, man will become complacent, but happy and contented because we don't have to compete with anyone.

My intention for the long-winded rant above is to explain my own rationalisation of what is happening and the potential effects of some suggestions to equalise opportunities for all children. Flame me if you must, and I would welcome any view that can highlight the fallacy of my thinking.

:goodpost: :udaman: :thankyou: Couldn't have said it better!

[Lilac66]

buds:

Lilac66:

[quote=\"buds\"]> http://mts.mendaki.org.sg/tuition.html


> http://www.sinda.org.sg/students/collaborative-tuition-programme/

Parents need to be better informed before targeting MOE for the lack of this and that in the guise of protecting the needs of the needy. Help is there. Ask and one shall receive.

Would appreciate the discussion w/o insinuation. Not everyone is well-informed. Or why is there a need for so many campaigns?

LAst post in this thread.

Now you are.

You have championed this \"needy cause\" in other threads as well.[/quote]
And may I ask what's wrong with championing for this group? It's not as if I have a hidden agenda. I'm not one of the needy but I'm for the needy.
If I say MCYS should raise more awareness,it does not mean that I'm blaming them.
We think everyone should know about Dengue-fever prevention, but why are they still having ads on this? Because it has reached a critical level, and many are still ignorant about this breeding. Again I'm not saying those that need such help is reaching a critical no., but is used as an example.
Even some parents here also admit that these lower-educated people may not exactly know where to seek help.

Unless one has a hidden agenda,one should be respectful of other's views.
I'm fine with a simple link if I had overlooked your previous post on this.

[J and J]

limlim:

ChiefKiasu:

There is a big difference between \"learning to score\" vs \"learn to understand\".

By the way, perhaps it is necessary to distinguish between primary education and secondary education?

What we expect from MOE for primary sch may be different from that for Secondary sch. Bcoz for secondary school, the students are more matured, and directives like \"teach less, learn more\" might be more desirable, when it may not be so for primary schools.

:goodpost: teach less (at school), learn less (from school), test more (at school) => play less, family bonding less, sleep less, visit doctor more

[janet88]

J and J:

limlim:

[quote=\"ChiefKiasu\"]

There is a big difference between \"learning to score\" vs \"learn to understand\".

By the way, perhaps it is necessary to distinguish between primary education and secondary education?

What we expect from MOE for primary sch may be different from that for Secondary sch. Bcoz for secondary school, the students are more matured, and directives like \"teach less, learn more\" might be more desirable, when it may not be so for primary schools.

:goodpost: teach less (at school), learn less (from school), test more (at school) => play less, family bonding less, sleep less, visit doctor more[/quote]'Teach Less, Learn More' is more appropriate for kids in sec schools, perhaps Sec 3 onwards since most :xedfingers: will be more mature by then. Not only teachers are seeing psychiatrists, so are the kids.

[limlim]

buds:

Orh-hor Chief...

You're in trouble with toady now. :nailbite:

Flowers are unacceptable. Only insects.

buds can do too.. since it is still sheltered by receptacle.. shd be tender and yummy.... :evil:

but if buds morph into bugs.. I can try to make do too..

[limlim]

buds:

Ok.. I didn't say aaaanything abt grouchy arh..


And I definitely kept mum abt.. as to whether or not limlim is old or young at heart.

But as to whether man or babe.. limlim has been dodging that confirmation in threads... referring to spouse as the CO or significant other.

It's ok to view me as dirty old man........

[concern2]

ChiefKiasu:

My biggest concern with our education system is NOT its high standards, or poor teachers. You get those everywhere else. It is the results-orientation. Like ourselves during our own schooldays, our children are taught the overriding importance of grades. We learn because we want to score. The harder we work, the more the learn, the higher we score. The key reason for academic tuition is to improve grades! The day when major examinations are abolished will be the day when tuition services go out of business.

YO, YO, YO!
CHIEFKIASU GO!
:rahrah: :rahrah:

This one, I really like!

Who actually goes to tuition these days to LEARN? (This is a sad laugh, actually, 苦笑）

ChiefKiasu:

But \"learning to score\" relates only to the technical aspects of learning. Yes, we can build knowledge by \"learning to score\", simply by remembering all the facts and techniques that we are taught. But we cannot hope to create new knowledge and wisdom. It is only when we \"learn to understand\" that we can start appreciating facts and information for what they mean, correlating them, linking them together, identifying patterns, and build new theories that allow us to predict outcomes from observations.

... It is about curiosity about things that happen around us. We always have the famous adage of Newton \"discovering\" gravity from this observation of a falling apple, Franklin \"discovering\" the electronic nature of lightning using his kite flying skills.

No doubt. Strong foundation has to be established before one is able to bloom, and tests are able to HELP establish if foundations are strong enough to move on. Yet, it is often the over-emphasis of these tests that kills the natural curiosity of learning in the process.

ChiefKiasu:

In my humble opinion, unless things change, this is the reason why Singaporeans will always be, at the most, middle managers. We are trained and equipped from our young to be worker bees. To take direction and orders from the top, and to execute flawlessly. Most of us will find it very difficult to be innovative or to think out of the box or to solve problems which are unprecedented.

Worker bees are not without their good. They know the job well, and often, that is a source of foundation of bright ideas. There are people who could come up with innovative solutions - but in reality, if you are without qualifications, your voice will not be heard. The society likes to ask the question of \"What are you?\" and it starts with the people at the top, those who finds they need a big pay cheque to speak louder and have more credibility. And the fish rots from the head. It takes people of different mindset to recognize bright ideas, and to appreciate the individual's contribution, regardless of how 'lowly educated' they are. And these people, regardless of how lack of formal education, are NOT STUPID. They are often the ones who could think out-of-the-box, because they have not been boxed-in in the first place.

Yet, unfortunately, there are also a big percentage of these people who often lack the ability and confidence to express themselves and to bring forth their ideas. Even if they do, they are often not given the due credit, and remain in the same position for years. We need to be able to widen our definition of success, to open our minds to recognize greatness and intelligence of different forms - not just in grades. If people starts tagging real learning and intelligence to \"What can it bring you?\" i.e. results, be it financial or scores, then before you know it, you'd have killed that possibility before you could even start to reap any fruits of it.

[limlim]

ChiefKiasu:

limlim:

But those who only take in certain students who met \"minimum requirement\".. are really \"unhealthy\" to society, I feel. The students who are \"learning to score\".. are they an asset to society should they finally managed to \"score\" with the additional help?

Is it really ok to not do anything about it?

It is the free market. It is the same as asking: \"Is it right for high-class restaurants to refuse entry to guests in shorts & slippers?\" As long as the business does not refuse business based on constitutional culturally-sensitive criteria (race, language, religion), there is no basis to do something to them. Remember, when the government intervene in the free market, they are effectively telling people what they can or cannot sell or buy. Those goes against the free market philosophy. It has to be supported by laws, which have to be debated, modified and approved before they can be enacted.

So when calling for the zhenghu to institute changes, we must be wary of the \"butterfly effect\". A good idea may turn out to be a nightmare in the long term. The famous \"Stop At 2\" policy comes to mind.

It is also same as refusing sale of alcohol to < 18yo. As well as the $100 levy (applies to citizen and PR but not other residents). As well as refusing free shuttle service of IRs from the heartlands. I am not suggesting these policies are no good.. I am just pointing out govt influence on the free market. It's a question of necessity.

So, the focus would be on necessity rather than dismiss it just bcoz it is \"against free market philosophy\", which is not new already.

For the last part, yes totally agree.

Hence, maybe more data would be appreciated..?

We are talking about education.. not about controlling fine dining or luxury clothing.. is the cost and investment, not worth it?

I recalled one year, budget debate, MOE was like.. criticized for not spending enough and leaving surplus of allocated budget!

Sorry.. I feel like a bit too much of a nag liao.. I can understand why buds and AB is so sianz with my post(s).. I have been repeating the same thing over and over again.. but the thing is.. I am still not able to accept \"against free market\" as justification to \"no action\". Hence my reply..

If forumers debate about good and bad of commercial tuition(for e.g.) and conclude that there is \"no harm\" with excessive commercial tuition, and no justification of \"changes\", then, I would accept it better

But of coz, I accept that views differ.. so.. yup.. that's all I want to say, for now..