Aspirations & the World
By Kevin
About the Cash...
Just went a friend at the LSE studying Law was talking about how the returns on a study of Law is not exactly worth it, The Economist describes how American Law School graduates are finding themselves jobless and under-compensated (compared to what they had expected). But should these students have studied Law because of the prospects of making big bucks?
At times you might find yourself drowning in reality, with people aggressively pursuing high-paying jobs, thinking fast-paced, intense life suits them. People are hungry for success but this success should be something you measure yourself with and not what others measure you with. Staying focused on one's goals are important and it becomes more and more of a challenge as you grow up and become faced with ever increasing alternatives in the world.
In school one usually follows the 'standard goal' of trying to do well and get good results and as you go higher in your education you realise that the co-curricular activities are important as well and then there's the community service; and then there's networking with peers, professionals, even politicians, potential employers, potential superiors and finally, when you're out in the world: trying to do the things you want to do (or you think you want to do). The point is that there are dozens of people out there who are trying to convince you that their idea of success matches yours and you should basically adopt their definition and go along what they defined to be great. You're very much on your own and through your life, you need to sharpen your ability to decide things independently and then bear the consequences of your decisions yourself. In other words, you need to grow up, in the truest sense of the word.
Education and social interactions have great powers in terms of encouraging conformity and you need to always blend-in while retaining yourself. I recently attended a talk and the speaker was quoting an assessment of kids' divergent thinking and 98% of the kids aged 3-5 are classified divergent thinkers but when they get to elementary school, and the assessment was done on the same kids, the figure dropped to 50%. By the time they're in high school, it's 32% and finally, a separate assessment of adults classified only 2% of them as divergent thinkers. Conformity is powerful and illusionarily (if there's such a word) comfortable.
The truths are, you don't have to be rich to be happy; the truth is success is a journey, it's about the trip you make and not the destination of it; the point is the action you took and not so much the outcome of it. The action is what tells people about you; the outcome serves only to tell half the story. So before you follow the flow, think where you wanna go.
Problems of an Elite Education
By Wei Seng
Through the hallowed gates of Yale... to a poorer future?
My friend posted a link on Facebook to an article titled 'The Disadvantages of an Elite Education' by William Deresiewicz. I decided to click and take a look at the article and it certainly did not disappoint, perhaps justifying why my friend just had to share the very long article on Facebook. I found many of the ideas communicated in the article quite pertinent to me, given that I was technically in an 'elite' school for the last 6 years of my education.
"The first disadvantage of an elite education": you become unable to talk to people who are not quite like yourself. The writer starts with an anecdote about how he was unable to talk to the plumber in his kitchen, someone presumably with a background totally different from the writer's. I can empathise, because I have encountered this same problem in camp. However while in Singapore the gap between the elite and non-elite is not as wide, that in America is much wider given that elitism not just self-perpetuates in the hallowed campuses of Boston and Ivy League colleges, there is a sense of contempt that is bred by the elite system.
Intelligence, as the writer discovers, is not just about the booksmart kind or the academic or analytic kind that is recognised in the elite education system. Intelligence could be in the form of social intelligence and emotional intelligence, and excellent performance in sports and other non-academic aspects appear to be not as recognised in the elite system.
"The second disadvantage of an elite education": inculcating a false sense of self worth. All the excellent SAT scores and A-level grades only indicate the ability to take tests and perhaps a measure of knowledge, but that does not reflect very much on how far one can succeed in life. Sure, life is a series of tests, but not of the paper-and-pen kind that one can score highly at by mugging away. I take pride in what I know and my academic performance, which the writer acknowledges is something worth being proud of, but so what? Sometimes I lament that I do not know things that many people of my age who went through a mainstream education know, such as cooking (which secondary school students pick up in Home Economics) and fixing of basic electronic devices.
After that feeling of smugness and self-back-patting, there's the idea that "measures of intelligence and academic achievement are measures of value in some moral or metaphysical sense". But humans are all equal, the worth of someone from an elite school is not more than that of someone who was not. As the writer illustrates, "Their pain does not hurt more. Their souls do not weigh more".
And there's the privileges of being in an elite school, that those not from an elite school might not get: exposure to "visiting power brokers" and "foreign dignitaries", scholarships and stipends, opportunities to travel overseas for various reasons ranging from community involvement to research symposiums. I have been very thankful for all the opportunities that my school gave me, and I often wonder what I would have become without all these opportunities. The uneven playing field becomes even less level.
The claims by the writer become more audacious, but echo horrifyingly. Those from elite schools are being pampered for the world they are poised to enter: plenty of opportunity to climb, freedom to pursue one's interests, high-flying careers and social lives. Those not from the elite schools then might be destined for a life of "few second chances, no extensions, little support, narrow opportunity—lives of subordination, supervision, and control, lives of deadlines, not guidelines". All these apply to Singapore quite strongly. But the next few allegations may or may not apply as evidently to Singapore, where the writer suggests that while the system is meritocratic to the point of entry into the elite system, once one gets in it is almost impossible for him to be kicked out for any misdemeanour.
And from there on the allegations lobbed against the elite education system become a bit less applicable to Singapore, though not any less irrelevant or banal. Those who come out from the elite education system may out of 'face' (I use a very Asian concept though the American concept would be pride) not want to pursue anything less than a high-paying job in a comfortable office, though that may not be one's true calling or passion in life. There's the fear of failure, and an obsession with failure even in the banal context of a class test in school. At least in my opinion, there are those from the elite education system who have taken risks and trodded the road less travelled to success (albeit measured in very material manners such as wealth and influence): Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Microsoft and Facebook respectively who both came from Harvard. But regarding the obsession with failure I must claim to be the epitome of this idea because I am so afraid of failure or losing at anything that I tend to restrict myself to doing things that I do well or that I would win, which certainly is not good for my personal development.
The most damning disadvantage of an elite education, the writer accuses after all the disadvantages trickle through, is that "it is profoundly anti-intellectual". I think I shall leave you to go read the article yourself to find out why the writer says this, despite the fact that the elite education is supposed to nurture intellectuals to their fullest potential.
I welcome some rebuttals from all, not just those from the "elite" schools.
Origins of America’s White Anxiety
By Wei Seng
Cooperate, not fight!
I covered something in relation to America's white anxiety crisis a few months back, reviewed from a Time magazine article, but it seems like now there appears to be a source of which America's white anxiety originates.
Ross Douthat in The New York Times discusses an origin of America's white anxiety: the positive discrimination that America's elite schools practice, in the process excluding many white Christians, which then creates a gap between the liberal, multiracial elite and the conservative and white Christians middle-class. It is quite an interesting observation, that while quite a bitter pill to swallow for liberals and those who believe in multiracialism and affirmative action after decades of racism, it is necessary for governments to be careful with affirmative action because any form of discrimination, positive or otherwise, would create resentment as it is happening in America today.
The chasm between the liberals (quite a significant proportion of the elite, of which many come from the top American universities such as Harvard) and the conservatives (significantly white Christian and male) appears to remain as insurmountable as ever, or even widening, with the Obama administration in the White House. Key figures in the conservative sphere have complained that the liberal administration today is practicing "racism" (preference for the coloured) and its policies a form of "reparations" (for all the past misdeeds against the coloured). Most liberals (and as a self-proclaimed liberal) I find their arguments quite silly as many of the conservatives seem to be practicing their own form of racism (against the coloured) so who started what? But it appears as if there is a source of all this discontent against the elite: the practices of elite universities in America.
According to two Princeton sociologists, a study of the admissions process and affirmative action of "eight highly selective colleges and universities" shows that the admissions procedure "seemed to favour black and Hispanic applicants, while whites and Asians needed higher grades and SAT scores to get in". I do not quite understand why Asians would need better grades, as this seems to be a form of racism as well, but I guess it is meant to be a barrier to entry for hopeful students in Asia. But it seems as if affirmative action is well at work here when black and Hispanic applicants are favoured, given that historically these people were the disadvantaged and discriminated against. But now those most disadvantaged by this process are the (racial majority) white: especially the lower-income, "rural and working-class". It is possible that universities are trying to make their racial profile look multiethnic and reserve financial aid for these students.
"Cultural biases" seem to be at work as well: "most extra-curricular activities " would "increase your odds of admission" but apparently participation in activities like Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC), 4-H and Future Farmers of America would actually "jeopardise" your chances. Unknowingly or otherwise, these elite institutions seem to be "incline against candidates who seem too stereotypically rural or right-wing or Red America".
This creates an "underrepresentation" of working-class whites (particularly white Christians) in these universities and eventually in the "ranks these campuses feed into: in law and philanthropy, finance and academia, the media and the arts". According to Douthat this can breed "paranoia, among elite and non-elites alike", which is already evident from the "racially tinged conspiracy theories" against President Obama that conservatives are keen to perpetuate and exploit. Meanwhile the "highly educated and liberal", with minimal contact with "rural, working-class America" and especially with the rise of the Tea Party movement, imagine the Red American heartland to be full of evangelical theocrats and Ku Klux Klansmen.
When affirmative action backfires, are there alternatives? Singapore's practice of meritocracy might be an alternative. Even meritocracy has its own flaws, such as perpetuating inequality amongst the races (the black are, after all, still in general largely disadvantaged - poorer, less educated, more likely to be unemployed) and it would be quite impossible to be fully meritocratic (granted, these elite universities have been practicing quite a fair bit of meritocracy too). It is a tough balancing act for these elite schools, but arent these elite schools, with the cream of the crop, supposed to be able to find solutions to the problems in society? We need to challenge these schools to come out with a fair way that will allow affirmative action and yet ensure that it does not squeeze out the deserving majority.
Gardening in School – Education or Distraction?
By Wei Seng
Homework: Watering the plants
I chanced upon a very interesting article by Gloria Dawson on The Daily Green. This phenomenon is not so much seen in Singapore than in the United States, where gardening in schools was introduced and encouraged, in particular by US First Lady Michelle Obama, to raise students' interests in gardening, nurture green thumbs as well as environmentalism and encourage healthy eating.
I thought such initiatives were pretty self-explanatory in terms of benefits, are pretty much non-political and non-debatable. Dawson had however found an article by a Caitlin Flanagan that expressed much disdain for school gardens, with the argument that "schools are taking kids out of the classroom" when they need to spend more time in the classroom to learn and be educated on the basics, and then eventually climb the educational system. It was something I never really thought about given Singapore's higher-quality educational system, but in America where educational standards are dropping and schools struggle to keep students interested, school gardens may backfire in their intentions as well.
Statistics so far appear to indicate that school gardens have somehow helped boost grades and "understanding of lessons", probably indirect effects of being involved in a garden. It might perhaps create interest in staying in school, or create opportunities to pick up skills such as organisation, leadership and responsibility which would be useful both in lessons and outside of lessons. Unfortunately, the school gardens initiative has caught on with political posturing and people are lambasting the educational system and those who implement the initiative. At least Flanagan's arguments were not exactly without merit, but it appears that Dawson is implicitly pointing fingers at politicians who are blaming the school gardens initiative to their advantage.
There's really plenty to learn from school gardens, in terms of skills and knowledge. Where your food comes from, how to eat healthily; children need to know given that they now live in a very much urban society where food is convenient and global and they do not know where their food comes from, what they should eat, how much they should eat and so on. Again, I am reminded of the book 'The End of Food' by Paul Roberts that I am currently reading about and will review in due time. Links to other articles about the school gardens argument are in The Daily Green article.
Public Education
By Kevin
Cash for Brains
Traditionally education has been mostly funded by the governments, at least mass education. Things didn't start out this way of course; education started out as some sort of pastime for the rich kids and subsequently became a tool to distinguish the aristocrats and peasants, serving the function of supporting what was eventually called 'high culture'.
In fact, education wasn't so focused on writing, reading and arithmetic in the beginning - it consists mostly of life-skills like archery, horse-riding, a little hand combat, a couple of classics. But then people realised that civilized behaviours helped cultivate deeper relationships between people and improved interactions between strangers whose education has resulted in some sort of informally synchronized norms. Crude traders therefore decided to become 'educated'.
As technological advancement made education an economic necessity, government started to intervene in the market for education. Theoretically speaking it is because the rising external marginal benefit resulting from education so the good becomes more of a market failure as the potential positive spillover effects increase. Mass education became important as the educated bunch tend towards a critical bulk. When everyone around you are educated then the cost of not being educated rises. When all your trading partners consist of educated people who demand certain standard of conduct when doing business, then there's more pressure to be educated. Government spending on education thus climbed, but in a good way.
It's then a pity that budget deficits caused by the economy education have been helping to support all the while is causing funding for education to be slashed. Yet like what is mentioned The Economist article, this is an important opportunity for private sector education providers. For-profit education might sound like a bad idea since they have all the incentives to dish out qualifications to those with 'financial quality' and shun the poor smart ones; this is the moment for them to correct their image and raise their standards of education to those of public education; this selectivity will benefit them long after a boom in private-section education industry.
Problem with Equilibrium
By Kevin
Getting the right mix
The notion of equilibria is that they become outcomes inevitably as long as freedom reign and natural forces do their work. And when it comes to social phenomena, when an outcome is less than desired at the end of the day, it is not anyone's fault nor a result of any conspiracy to discriminate, exclude and segregate. In the economics, we believe that the maximum welfare benefits for the society will be attained through the free market, except for the cases where the market fails (which is anything short of perfectly competitive markets) and then the case for intervention depends on the cost of intervening and whether the market failure can be 'solved'. Any equilibria deviating from the free market equilibrium can either be a result of failures with the market or friction to attaining equilibrium caused by external forces (like government regulation, taxes or subsidies).
It is in this tradition that free market economists like Milton Friedman advocate use of vouchers from the government for parents to choose whatever school to send their kids and thus let the schools with the best quality and ability to churn out good students win. That is in essence the spirit of competition. Fortunately, detractors have long pointed out problems with competition in areas where we probably hope for a win-win outcome. Education is such an area, where we want all students to be able to excel and do well - a result of the discussion at Economist Free Xchange Blog.
And the analogy with home ownership by Felix Salmon quoted in the entry is particularly significant because ghettos are often a result of similar 'free market' conditions and the natural equilibrium is that of segregation, depending on the threshold tolerance for the proportion of another race - an area explored many years back by Thomas Schelling, while doodling on board a plane (from an anecdote I read in Tim Harford's Logic of Life).
This is disturbing for economists, because it is suggesting that a government's hand in the matter would improve the situation and reduce the frustration felt by educators and parents (in the case of good/bad schools equilibrium), property developers and home owners (in the case of ghettos and neighbourhoods). The problem with government intervention is we are not sure where is that optimal point where the benefits applied to the entire community is maximized; and we cannot be sure that the eventual outcome, with the cost of intervention accounted for, would end up being better than the natural equilibrium state of the system.
And perhaps that's why the entry at the Free Xchange Blog concludes with "It's a problem without a good solution, as best I can tell."
Taking Notes
By Kevin
We all take notes during lectures; I've got friends who practically pen down everything the lecturer says and others who merely fills up blanks in the notes. I'm pretty sure neither constitutes note taking so I decided to explore what taking notes mean in education and learning. My questions was; how do you take notes that would benefit you in learning the stuff of interest?
Do it right
Lectures
At lectures, I found that the best was stick to the stuff given, filling in blanks wherever necessary and taking note of things not mentioned in the notes given. Don't allow the note-taking to distract you from learning during the lecture. Listening to the teacher and observing the projected slides or images or even looking at the demonstrations that the lecturers are showing are way more important than getting the notes down. The fact is that you're going to remember things more clearly when you focus and not when you write them down. Of course, information locked in paper has their kind of permanence but then you're compromising on some subtle details in those information if you're trying to get down everything during the lecture.
I believe that any knowledge or information impressed upon the mind in the form of the booming voice of a lecturer or the visual memory of a live demonstration in the lecture hall of an experiment would be way stronger than something you try to memorise off a sheet of paper. Besides, these strong impressions tied to your lecturers, professors and tutors would give you the confidence in the information you manage to lock within your mind. Information you read off notes or memorise from textbook would provide less confidence because you would have doubts about your own means of interpretation or your reading of the stuff when you're at exam situation.
Revision
Most people I know don't take notes during revisions. Revisions are the time to read through notes you've written, they say. Wrong! The thing about writing notes is that it's not so much for your reading pleasure later but for the act of doing it. The act of writing notes (in the right way, a point to be elaborated later) actually helps you absorb and remember the concepts. The idea is to transfer facts and knowledge into your mind and not on to another piece of paper. The paraphasing, the need to look up dictionaries for technical terms you're unsure about, the work involved in finding out what each concept or theory seeks to explain are all part of the process of note-writing when you're revising for your exams or tests and these are exactly the same things that will contribute to your learning.
And when you take notes during revision, synthesize materials and knowledge you obtain from different sources - the textbooks, the reference materials, your readings, lecture notes and the informal stuff you've written down yourself. Write things down because they guide you to learn the concept/subject in question and not because they've been printed on the sources where you try to copy them from.
The Right Way
After being a student for so many years, I've come to believe that there's a 'right' way to take notes. First, take down only concise materials and not chunks off textbooks, readings and lecture notes. Next, write only things you understand and find out things that you don't during the process of note taking. In other words, get beside a computer and google stuff you're unsure about as you try to take notes from your readings and so on. Just don't become distracted by the computer and end up being on Facebook. Finally, draw diagrams whenever necessary but don't get too concerned with trying to beautify your notes and take hours sketching brilliant artworks - the whole point is to practice applying, penning the stuff you learn.
A final note is that your notes should ideally be comprehended only by people who are already familiar with the things taught in class or have already read through everything that you've read to compile the information. Your notes should not be a duplicate of everything explained on your lectures and end up becoming another textbook of sorts.
Fair Competition
By Kevin
While religions fight for believers and evangelists roam around in schools, and even public places like bus stops (I was approached by one when I was in Secondary 3 and quite traumatized by the experience), the 'atheist' belief doesn't seem to have any particular ground to hold on to. Lexington in a couple of issues back of The Economist describes a neatly organized summer camp to compete with typical 'church camps' for atheists and agnostics.
It is perhaps only fair that while there are those around you tells you to have faith, you should understand that we should weigh evidence, learn the methods of determining facts and assure you that it is alright to be without a religion. It is okay to be faced with an uncertain future without a Second Coming or to do without the fear of Judgment because of a lack of faith.
Humanism will probably be the default religion/position one takes on while exploring different religions. You might eventually settle on one, but till then, you'd probably be better off believing in yourself and fellow mankind.
Big Bang Theory
By Kevin
Series Title Card
Recommended by Danny (aka ahdui) from HeadphoneHaven, I started watching a couple of episodes of the US sitcom, The Big Bang Theory and was positively intrigued by the show's ability to amuse with its exaggeratedly geeky characters. The show is packed with factual tidbits usually delivered by the Physics genius (and also a child prodigy), Sheldon Cooper, portrayed by Jim Parsons.
I must say Jim Parsons really does a good job portraying Sheldon. The series is full of sophisticated humour that sets it apart from IT Crowd, a British sitcom also portraying nerd/geeks. Unfortunately IT Crowd focuses on more slapstick humour and the nerd/geek-types are unimaginably socially inept to the extent you wonder how they managed to grow up and be in the circumstances they are in. Big Bang Theory offers characters who are just plain super intelligent and more plausible real-world situation for nerd/geek-types. It cast doubts on the advantages of being intellectually superior over most people.
While it makes sophisticated jokes that sometimes might be closer to heart for undergraduates in the various fields of sciences (especially Physics), the series is made for the general audience and most ordinary people would appreciate the humour enough to have a great laugh for each episode. I think it's a great sitcom though I haven't really decided if it is better than 'Friends'. I must say it is way smarter though.
Balance of Currencies
By Kevin
Reading Dr Goh Keng Swee's Wealth of East Asian Nations helped me see the realities of many economic theories. While Dr Goh is a really intellectual academic, he is deeply practical and makes policy decisions based on his observations of the real world. The most interesting piece of information I picked up from the book so far is how the real world deviates from the theory that connects Balance of Payments equilibrium to the Floating exchange rate system.
We learnt in A Levels Economics and basic Macroeconomic modules that Floating exchange rate system is supposed to provide a self-correcting mechanism for the Balance of Payments (BOP) through the appreciation or depreciation of currencies in accordance to export and import figures. The typical explanation goes like this: When a country exports heavily and starts accumulating surpluses for BOP, the demand for their goods would drive up the demand for their currency and that translates to appreciation of their currency. From the perspective of the consumers, the appreciation will make the goods more expensive and thus reduce their demand for them. Eventually the exports will reduce to a level that eliminates the surplus. The opposite case is expected of a country experiencing trade deficit since depreciation of their currency would make their exports more competitive.
Unfortunately the real world doesn't work that beautifully. And it has all to do with the individual countries efforts to manage their currency. In other words the theory did not expect the individual countries to respond in the way they do in reality. In countries like Japan and Germany, the appreciation of their currencies leads their exporters to find more cost savings and achieve greater efficiencies in order to offer the same goods at the same or just slightly higher price for their consumers in countries experiencing depreciating currency. This means that the surpluses stays with them. On the other hand, the countries experiencing deficits like the US attempts to hold its currency value by attracting capital investment into their country so that they can continue to import goods at roughly the same prices even when the countries they import from are supposedly having appreciating currencies.
At the end of the day the Balance of Payment worsens with countries like Japan accumulating more surpluses and US sinking deeper into deficits. The issue is not even about a comparison of whether free float currencies works better than managed float, it is about the spirit of the entire economy and their reaction towards movements in currency values. The deep desire of Japanese companies to export is matched by the deep desire of American consumers to import and the result is obvious in the world we live.
Macroeconomics is still a long way from being mastered by us all.