Lack of Suitable Indicators

I read in the news today that there was another spat between Mr. Phillip Yeo and another A* scholar. Which caused me think just what exactly does scoring 6 points in O lvl mean. Or getting straight As for all 10 subjects.

For subjects like science and maths, if one is to go into the area of pure research, then the skills are most certainly not those taught in school. Obviously you need some science concepts to understand what you are doing. But I might remind people that scientists 100 years ago certainly did not learn Relativity before creating the concept of it. Most frontiers of science are pushed back by mostly groping in the dark, by pure luck. If you are working in the area of theoretical science, then obviously you need a creative mind, one that can twist and mould mental ideas. The ability to visualise the most abstract of concepts would be useful. If you are working in the area of experimental research, you would need some good experimental skills. Though nowadays, there are so many high tech machines to alleviate your job that you most certainly do not need such marvellous skill with your hands anymore.

Now, is creative thinking taught in school? A little. Is the ability to visualise the most abstract concepts taught in school? None. Just what is being tested when you sit down for the paper? Your ability to memorise huge chunks of information, your ability to predict exactly what is it that the examiner wants, and your ability to allocate the scarce resource, Time, in an efficient manner, to score the most amount of points possible. So, getting an A means simply are you are profficient in all 3 abilities stated above.

Now, out of the 3 abilities, is it of any use? Perhaps the part on allocating time properly. The other 2 abilities is completely useless, useful only for playing the game "Lets take an Exam!".

That being said, we must now look at why Singapore uses meritocracy as its benchmark. Let the best talent be in the government. Let the best talent be in successful business. How else to search for the best talent, if not the idea of doing well academically? This used to be true for any country that has only a small amount of people being educated. Real studying came about not just memorise chunks of chinese poem, but also studying exactly why such poets wrte such a poem, in what circumstances, puting yourself in his shoes. Through his lens, you see the world in a different manner. And you understand and accept. Real studying of science involved experimenting with the world around you, interacting with it. Smell it, see it, hear it, and feel it. Real studying of science comes about reasoning through cause and effect of phenomena. You reason it through, see for yourself that it is really like that. And you understand and accept.

In the modern world that reflects a manufacturing process, students are likened to production of goods in a factory. In a bid for speed and scale, children are taken as input, teachers apply the rubber stamp as mold. And you get a cookie cutter process, where every student looks exactly the same like the next one. It is ironic that students write analysis in essays, without really doing the analysis for themselves in the first place. No one goes all out to look for answers to why certain things are like that. Teachers say just accept it, and no one bothers to look for answers, be it from a book, from the internet, or even start experimenting.

Our exams are testing the wrong skills..Perhaps there is no way to test creativity. There is therefore a conundrum. How to test quantitavely that people do really possess the skills, if there is no accurate test? If we cannot have an accurate test, then how to we judge how to whose the best?

Currently, a 3.8 GPA score means nothing at all.