From : http://theladymelissa.blogspot.com/2...graduates.html

I would suggest that anyone reading this post also take a look at the very vibrant comment page.

Village Graduates
I have been engaging a half-educated person in a semblance of intellectual debate under the comment pages of "A Good Christian Girl" and "A Refutation of Sorts".

As everyone knows, I did not go to a local university; whenever I come into contact with a local graduate, their intellectual paucity always astounds me .

The worse people to debate with are the badly educated. The uneducated are easy to dismiss. The well-educated are a joy to debate with, even if sometimes disagreements can get quite heated - you nevertheless go away mentally stimulated and satisfied. The badly educated on the other hand (like this person who more or less admitted to be an NUS Arts and Social Science graduate) are painful to debate with.

These people have read the right books, memorised the right key words and phrases, but have no real understanding of the issues. Worse, they lack to intellect to analyse these topics properly. In these cases, what happens is that you get verbal diarrhoea spewed at you and you don't even know where to begin to argue back, because even though all the paragraphs are correctly stringed together, the sentences are grammatical, the spelling is almost always right, the right names and phrases are dropped, BUT the person does not make any sense. This leaves you intellectually frustrated because unlike uneducated people, you have to unteach before you teach. It's like a gadfly, albeit without the intelligence of Socrates, which you have to swat away, because this person talks your language ostensibly, and you feel a compulsion to correct her.

The local universities cannot be good until the government stops sending the brightest overseas on scholarships; however, the local universities will fail to attract them until they can draw the best thinkers and dons on all levels, rather than second-rate teachers from India and China. It is a vicious cycle and until this cycle is broken, local university undergraduates (with the exception of Law and Medicine) will always be second-rate, so much so that some foreign (mainland Chinese) undergraduates have said that Singaporeans are stupid. If their experience is only at the local universities, it is no wonder they say that, since our most brilliant have all gone overseas to Oxbridge and the Ivies, Stanford or MIT. What these mainland Chinese have not experienced are these students who have not only gone to the best universities in the world, but consistently top these universities. I honestly think that the mainland Chinese and Indians who top NUS/NTU/SMU would be easily trounced if they came up against our true best and brightest.

Singapore needs to put more resources into universities if it wants to be taken seriously as a First World Nation. The vicious cycle needs to be broken somewhere - they need to hire the best professors and get some of the brightest to stay at home. These may lead to fewer places at the local universities so some people will not qualify. But some people don't belong at universities - they would probably serve society better by getting technical proficiency at a polytechnic, then joining the workforce.

Afterall, it's better to be a non-graduate than a half-educated village graduate

lol.. ppl are entitled to their opinions what.. they say sucks then sucks lo.. ur that fella in the comment part tio boh..

if u want to go argue and point out what EVERYBODY said is flawed, u gonna be a very busy person..

if she feels that local uni grads suck, u or anybody online ain't gonna change that..

S'poreans are smart people.

They know everything, but understand nothing.

To answer your question, this post is not offensive, i find that it makes sense because Singapores education system is a big screw up in the first place. Singaporeans are hardworking people, they aren't smartworking people, so hardwork will enable them to memorise very well but they cant think with their brains and its kinda sad to see every smart singaporean bark, sit, roll over and play dead at the command of a figure of authority.

Fact is tat NTU and NUS r consistently the top 100 universities in the world. It is sad tat people r looking down upon their education while the people from other countries r highly regarding it.

I don't really care.

I'm not going to compare NUS education system

But I can safely say that NUS administration sucks. The admin staff at NUS is much much more unhelpful as compared to the German University I went to.

The one at NTU sucks as well

But sad to say admin is not important in university ranking

yeah

but personal experience: I could have scored a slightly higher CAP and save quite a bit of time if the admin had answered my questions more properly last time; instead, they only directed me to a website which did not even answer my question.

But also, sad to say, actual quality of students are not really determined in university rankings too. There's greater focus on the number of patents, researchers, facilities, etc, than the actual quality of students, not to mention that the method of examiniation is very uniquely Singapore. In Germany, you are not only tested in written papers, there's also oral examinations in which the lecturers will make very very sure that you really understand the subject, else you will score rather badly. You have to experience the differences to know that education at NUS is not really as good.

Peer appraisal has a big weightage for the ranking so the quality of the student do affect the result

If u talk about examination, I felt written examination to be the most fairest. To really make sure the person understand the subject, u just ask good questions in the written examination. Oral examination is subjective since they can really see who u r.

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

Peer appraisal has a big weightage for the ranking so the quality of the student do affect the result

If u talk about examination, I felt written examination to be the most fairest. To really make sure the person understand the subject, u just ask good questions in the written examination. Oral examination is subjective since they can really see who u r.

You would think it is subjective because you have not experienced it. Go enroll in a German university to find out. It's way too long to explain to you how it works. You will be grilled even more intensely in a particular portion if the lecturer manage to find out which portion of the module you are unclear of.

Written examinations are way too easy to score; they are no brainers. I'm sure many had experienced being able to score As for some modules even though they do not fully understand it.

Well obviously asking me to go and register to a German University to find out wat is oral examination all about is certainly more difficult than u just explaning wat it is about. If they ask people different questions, then how can it be fair ? If they ask the same question, then how is it different from written examination ?

U may think written examination r too easy to score but I believed most people think otherwise.

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

Well obviously asking me to go and register to a German University to find out wat is oral examination all about is certainly more difficult than u just explaning wat it is about. If they ask people different questions, then how can it be fair ? If they ask the same question, then how is it different from written examination ?

U may think written examination r too easy to score but I believed most people think otherwise.

U may think written examination r too easy to score but I believed most people think otherwise.

Isn't it worse? If many people think that such a system is hard to score, I can tell you they will die even more badly if they were to go to a German university.

What's worse if you cannot verbally defend the things, theories and facts that you have learned, and verbally answer questions given to you? Truly a village graduate who cannot do anything else but write.

What's worse if you cannot verbally defend the things, theories and facts that you have learned, and verbally answer questions given to you? Truly a village graduate who cannot do anything else but write.

...

U can defend and applied your knowledge using writing. As said before, isn't oral examination subjective since the examiner can see who u really r and the questions deviate from people to people. Tat is why even german university have written examination as well and most universities in the world only have written examination. If because of tis they r village graduates, then probably most of the world r village graduates

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

...

U can defend and applied your knowledge using writing. As said before, isn't oral examination subjective since the examiner can see who u really r and the questions deviate from people to people. Tat is why even german university have written examination as well and most universities in the world only have written examination.

Yes, the questions do deviate, but they make sure you know every single thing truly.

What's the point of you coming out of a module, scoring highly, yet do not fully understand everything.

Yes, you can defend in writing. But there are certain strategies like skipping some portions of the questions which can still allow you to score high. For oral examinations, you cannot skip any of the questions at all.

I'm not saying written examinations are not good; I'm saying that it is not as good as oral examinations in ensuring that you know the module very very well before graduating with an A for it.

As said earlier, what's worse if you cannot verbally defend the things, theories and facts that you have learned, and verbally answer questions given to you?

What would you think of a researcher who can write a world class research paper, but cannot defend his theories and facts verbally?

Yes, you can defend in writing. But there are certain strategies like skipping some portions of the questions which can still allow you to score high. For oral examinations, you cannot skip any of the questions at all.

In NTU, there r no optional questions. U have to answer everything to score high

I'm not saying written examinations are not good; I'm saying that it is not as good as oral examinations in ensuring that you know the module very very well before graduating with an A for it.

My personal impression is written examination is probably good enough. Tat is why most university adopt only written examination

As said earlier, what's worse if you cannot verbally defend the things, theories and facts that you have learned, and verbally answer questions given to you?

What would you think of a researcher who can write a world class research paper, but cannot defend his theories and facts verbally?

U r assuming tat people who didn't do oral examination to be incapable of defending themselves verbally. If a person write a world class research paper, how can he not know the theories at all ?

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

In NTU, there r no optional questions. U have to answer everything to score high

My personal impression is written examination is probably good enough. Tat is why most university adopt only written examination

In NTU, there r no optional questions. U have to answer everything to score high

If you think so, it means you do not truly know what's exam strategies.

My personal impression is written examination is probably good enough. Tat is why most university adopt only written examination

That's not totally true. At least for Physics in NUS, lab practicals, which are also graded, also have mini oral examinations. Not so for engineering. You are groomed to be able to talk on paper, but put you in front of an audience who will fire questions at you and expecting answers without giving you as much time to think as you would for a written paper, would you be able to do the same?

U r assuming tat people who didn't do oral examination to be incapable of defending themselves verbally. If a person write a world class research paper, how can he not know the theories at all ?

So you are telling me if you score A for a module, you will definitely know all your theories very well?

wah....a bit like olympics' ping pong.

If you think so, it means you do not truly know what's exam strategies

If u ask the right questions, exam strategies r not useful

That's not totally true. At least for Physics in NUS, lab practicals, which are also graded, also have mini oral examinations. Not so for engineering. You are groomed to be able to talk on paper, but put you in front of an audience who will fire questions at you and expecting answers without giving you as much time to think as you would for a written paper, would you be able to do the same?

 Fact is engineer r given time to work out their solution. They can refer to books and charts and calculate and finally come out with a good design or answer. I don't see why we should put them in front of audiences to be fired. Furthermore they do go for projects presentation as well as communication studies so we can expect them to handle the situation well

Perhaps you missed this:

What would you think of a researcher who can write a world class research paper, but cannot defend his theories and facts verbally?

To be absolutely frank to u, if a person write a good world class research paper, it means he know the theory. If he seems to be bad at defending his theories verbally, it means he is nervous and maybe forgetful. However he still write the world class research paper, contribute to society and I will respect him for it.

Perhaps u missed tis: Does those who do not do oral examination necessary means they r bad at defending their theories verbally even though they have written a world class reseach paper ?

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

If u ask the right questions, exam strategies r not useful

 Fact is engineer r given time to work out their solution. They can refer to books and charts and calculate and finally come out with a good design or answer. I don't see why we should put them in front of audiences to be fired. Furthermore they do go for projects presentation as well as communication studies so we can expect them to handle the situation well

To be absolutely frank to u, if a person write a good world class research paper, it means he know the theory. If he seems to be bad at defending his theories verbally, it means he is nervous and maybe forgetful. However he still write the world class research paper, contribute to society and I will respect him for it.

Perhaps u missed tis: Does those who do not do oral examination necessary means they r bad at defending their theories verbally even though they have written a world class reseach paper ?

If u ask the right questions, exam strategies r not useful

So you are telling me that ALL questions are asked rightly such that exam strategies are not useful? In that case, NTU should rank even higher than NUS.

Fact is engineer r given time to work out their solution. They can refer to books and charts and calculate and finally come out with a good design or answer. I don't see why we should put them in front of audiences to be fired. Furthermore they do go for projects presentation as well as communication studies so we can expect them to handle the situation well

The underlined statements shows perfectly your mindset and your poor understanding of what is meant by oral examinations.

Theories are have no need to be worked out; I'm talking about testing of theories and facts all along, and not the working out of solutions. Working out of solutions is for the written examinations.

To be absolutely frank to u, if a person write a good world class research paper, it means he know the theory. If he seems to be bad at defending his theories verbally, it means he is nervous and maybe forgetful. However he still write the world class research paper, contribute to society and I will respect him for it.

That's what you think. Do you seriously think the scientific community not start to suspect whether it is him who wrote the paper?

Perhaps u missed tis: Does those who do not do oral examination necessary means they r bad at defending their theories verbally even though they have written a world class reseach paper ?

I have already answered you with this:

So you are telling me if you score A for a module, you will definitely know all your theories very well

Again, seems like you prefer an underkill than an overkill. I did not say those who do not do oral examinations means they are bad at defending their theories verbally. I'm saying that the NUS education system does not guarantee at all that every single graduate who do well with an A can defend their theories verbally. Maybe oral examinations cannot guarantee every single one too, but at the minimal, I'm confident enough that it can produce much more graduates who can.

not at all, because i am uneducated.

Originally posted by kopiosatu:

not at all, because i am uneducated.

or eui, kow....chit puay!

that person in the blog can call me a peasant for all i care

i'll just be uneducated and don't reply.

So you are telling me that ALL questions are asked rightly such that exam strategies are not useful? In that case, NTU should rank even higher than NUS.

I am telling u tat if u ask the questions in a written examination well, exam strategies r not useful since no one can predict wat u r gonna ask. I am not saying NTU ask all the right questions in the exams. However can u tell me the people in the oral examination can ask all the right questions too ?

The underlined statements shows perfectly your mindset and your poor understanding of what is meant by oral examinations.

Theories are have no need to be worked out; I'm talking about testing of theories and facts all along, and not the working out of solutions. Working out of solutions is for the written examinations.

Testing of theories and facts can be done on written examination as well 

Again, seems like you prefer an underkill than an overkill. I did not say those who do not do oral examinations means they are bad at defending their theories verbally. I'm saying that the NUS education system does not guarantee at all that every single graduate who do well with an A can defend their theories verbally. Maybe oral examinations cannot guarantee every single one too, but at the minimal, I'm confident enough that it can produce much more graduates who can.

The more important skills for an engineer or a research is to come out with the solution or write a world class research paper. Tat skill is adequately tested in written examinations. The only additional skill which is tested on the oral examination is probably presentation skill. And it is also trained during presentation of projects and communication skill.

I am telling u tat if u ask the questions in a written examination well, exam strategies r not useful since no one can predict wat u r gonna ask. I am not saying NTU ask all the right questions in the exams. However can u tell me the people in the oral examination can ask all the right questions too ?

 

Testing of theories and facts can be done on written examination as well

The questions asked in oral examinations pinpoint heavily on your uncertain portions. When the lecturer sense that you are unclear, he will ask more heavily on that portion. Can you tell me that any written examinations that do that?

And tell me, what exam strategies do you think that can apply to oral examinations? You can't skip questions; and you have to understand on the spot.

And are you still telling me that you prefer a graduate who come out not knowing fully everything as compared to one who knows more because he has been more rigourously tested?

The more important skills for an engineer or a research is to come out with the solution or write a world class research paper. Tat skill is adequately tested in written examinations. The only additional skill which is tested on the oral examination is probably presentation skill. And it is also trained during presentation of projects and communication skill.

Are you even an engineer or a researcher?