There are many differerent roles in which the education play. I feel that all the different factors will contribute to allowing people to gain employment. Therefore i agree that the main function would be to let people gain employment. However during the process, it would help a person gain knowledge, improve his character , learn life skills, and thus moulding a better future for himself.
We always say that education should be holistic. It should emphasize the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts. Here the "whole" is being seen as gaining employment and the "interdpendence parts" would be would help a person gain knowledge, improve his character , learn life skills, and thus moulding a better future for himself.
Gaining knowlege is the basic of life and this is what education does. It help you learn skills and facts and know more about this world. We thus apply it in our daily lives. By having knowledge, you would be able to get through tests and exams, allowing yourself to gain access to certificates. With these certificates, they would act as a "passport" to gaining employment.
To improve a person character and to learn life skills would contribute to helping people to gain employment too. How you potray yourself to the world is defined by your character. If you hacve a bad attitude in life, you would not potray yourself well. Thus it would affect your impression on others and the other people would not want to work with you. Thus if education were to help a person improve his or her character, it would definitely be of some help in gaining employement. Learning life skills like how to communicate with others is important too. Learning to speak fluently is not enough. You would have to speak with purpose and understand how to react to circumstances. Even from your body language, an employer would know who to choose. Therefore we can see that teaching life skills as part of education helps gain employment too.
In conclusion, we can see that the main function of education can be to gain employment. The other aspects in education, would all contribute to this main function. Therefore i agree to this statement.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Education for society or education for the individual – which is more important?
For a long time, strong emphasis has been placed on education – whether it is parents taking time off from their busy working life to do hours of payless community service just to secure a place in a “branded” primary school for their child or the government holding countless debates just so as to make the education system a tad better. But what makes education so important that it is worth the sacrifices made for a good one? Education is vital because it benefits the society and more importantly, it helps to develop an individual.
Firstly, education is vital for the society. Many societal problems seek education as a solution. For example, racial harmony is maintained in Singapore by allowing young Singaporean to understand its importance as well as helping them to know about the different cultures. More recently, education is used as a preventive measure to certain problems, such as using the media to inform people about proper hygiene practice to curb the spread of the dengue fever. Hence, education is needed to heighten the people’s social awareness so as to create a better environment for the society.
Secondly, education is crucial for individual development. It plays a huge role in molding our character. For instance, education establishes the degree of discipline which in turns determines our attitude towards our tasks at hand. It also gives us the power of knowledge which helps us to make important decisions in our lives. Hence, our actions and choices are largely influenced by the education we have and thus, a good education is require for us to do the right things so as to be successful in life.
The sum of every individual makes up the society. So because our individual actions and choices are largely influenced by the education that we have received, education for the individual is more important because it provides the foundation for education for the society to be built on. If one is not well disciplined, he may not bother to do his part in practising proper hygiene standards to curb the spread of the dengue fever. Likewise, how do we expect racial harmony to be maintained when one has not even been taught basic respect to another fellow human being? Hence, it is important for the individual to be education before the education for the society to be applied.
Firstly, education is vital for the society. Many societal problems seek education as a solution. For example, racial harmony is maintained in Singapore by allowing young Singaporean to understand its importance as well as helping them to know about the different cultures. More recently, education is used as a preventive measure to certain problems, such as using the media to inform people about proper hygiene practice to curb the spread of the dengue fever. Hence, education is needed to heighten the people’s social awareness so as to create a better environment for the society.
Secondly, education is crucial for individual development. It plays a huge role in molding our character. For instance, education establishes the degree of discipline which in turns determines our attitude towards our tasks at hand. It also gives us the power of knowledge which helps us to make important decisions in our lives. Hence, our actions and choices are largely influenced by the education we have and thus, a good education is require for us to do the right things so as to be successful in life.
The sum of every individual makes up the society. So because our individual actions and choices are largely influenced by the education that we have received, education for the individual is more important because it provides the foundation for education for the society to be built on. If one is not well disciplined, he may not bother to do his part in practising proper hygiene standards to curb the spread of the dengue fever. Likewise, how do we expect racial harmony to be maintained when one has not even been taught basic respect to another fellow human being? Hence, it is important for the individual to be education before the education for the society to be applied.
Do you think that there is any need for change in the educational system in your country? (Cam 1990)
Yes, I think that there is a need to change the educational system in Singapore. Although one of the aims of the education system set by the Ministry of Education Singapore is to develop individuals as an all-rounded individual with high intellect so as to prepare them for the workforce, this is most often perceived to be the only reason why Singaporean students are studying- to get a good job in the future. This has resulted in an increasingly competitive academic society in Singapore.
In the past, it was merely enough to have an A level or even O level certificate to get a decent job to provide food on the table. However, today, nothing short of a university degree will do. Moreover, nowadays there are more and more university graduates who even have difficulty finding jobs. This proves that now, even higher levels of education are required to provide you with job opportunities. Students now face an endless amount of pressure from their parents as well as teachers in having to constantly perform above par or face being relegated to the rubbish heap of failures. This has proved fatal as it has caused an escalating number of students committing suicide as they were unable to handle the mounting pressure on them.
In addition, this meritocracy in the education system where only the best survive has resulted in self-centred and inconsiderate teenagers, contrary to the Ministry of Education’s aim to shape morally upright and responsible young adults. Students compete among themselves to be the best in everything- studies, CCAs as well as other activities. As such, to ensure that they themselves are the best, all students care about are themselves and themselves only.
However, having said that, competition does have its pros. Competition helps to bring out the potential on students. That is, if everyone regardless of their intellectual abilities are of equal standard and will receive the same treatment, there will be no incentive to work hard. This will result in a stagnant country where everyone lazes around and no progress is made. It is also thanks to meritocracy that Singapore has progressed into such a developed and advanced state in such a short period of time.
Therefore, I feel that there is a need to change the educational system in Singapore. However, this change should be done subtly so as not to diminish the incentive to work hard and hence progress to the country.
In the past, it was merely enough to have an A level or even O level certificate to get a decent job to provide food on the table. However, today, nothing short of a university degree will do. Moreover, nowadays there are more and more university graduates who even have difficulty finding jobs. This proves that now, even higher levels of education are required to provide you with job opportunities. Students now face an endless amount of pressure from their parents as well as teachers in having to constantly perform above par or face being relegated to the rubbish heap of failures. This has proved fatal as it has caused an escalating number of students committing suicide as they were unable to handle the mounting pressure on them.
In addition, this meritocracy in the education system where only the best survive has resulted in self-centred and inconsiderate teenagers, contrary to the Ministry of Education’s aim to shape morally upright and responsible young adults. Students compete among themselves to be the best in everything- studies, CCAs as well as other activities. As such, to ensure that they themselves are the best, all students care about are themselves and themselves only.
However, having said that, competition does have its pros. Competition helps to bring out the potential on students. That is, if everyone regardless of their intellectual abilities are of equal standard and will receive the same treatment, there will be no incentive to work hard. This will result in a stagnant country where everyone lazes around and no progress is made. It is also thanks to meritocracy that Singapore has progressed into such a developed and advanced state in such a short period of time.
Therefore, I feel that there is a need to change the educational system in Singapore. However, this change should be done subtly so as not to diminish the incentive to work hard and hence progress to the country.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Is Formal Education Over Valued?
Yes, formal education is over valued in the Asian countries but not in the Western.
According to http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/literacy/referencematerials/glossaryofliteracyterms/WhatIsFormalEducation.htm, formal education is the process of training and developing people in knowledge, skills, mind, and character in a structured and certified program.
As such, we can see that the content delivered through teaching is restricted and everyone experiences and learns the same thing. However, the stituation is slightly different now because governments like that of Singapore, are starting to realise the importance of indivdual education. In my opinion, different education systems support different eras. Formal education has produced dependable people for predictable times. Referring to a quote by Tharman Shanmugaratnam in the 26 April 2002 issue of TIMEasia, "now it needs to produce a new breed of leaders who have a certain ruggedness, an ability to repond quickly to situations", we can see that formal education now is not as over valued as compared in the past.
However, comparing Asia's education system to Western's, they are worlds apart. Switzerland is one good example of producing quality and skilled workers through their decentralised education system. They offer apprenticeship which lasts 2-4 years. Apprenticeships include all kinds of professions, from handicraft (mechanician, carpenter, baker, hairdresser etc.) to office worker (secretary, bookkeeper, IT specialist etc.). Apprentice will get trained at a company or organization, but also attend school for one or two days a week. Therefore students get to choose to take up their subjects of interests and receive lots of hands-on training. Such little empahsis on formal education sparks the interests and curiosity of the students and make learning a more cohesive one.
For all I know, Singapore has not yet gotten over its indulgence in formal education as can be seen in the latest alteration to the criteria for entering Junior colleges(JC). Co-curricular Activity (CCA) points are not considered for deduction of the O level raw score compared to the preceding years. Hence all JCs' intake of students will soley depend on their academic result. How justifiable is that!
I personally do not resent the score-materialistic assessment system of indivdual's knowledge. However I think that the weightage of marks can be distributed more evenly throughout the year instead of just focusing on the four main examinations which are CA1, SA1, CA2 and SA2 respectively. This is because the performance of an individual, I believe, can be affected by many other factors such as stress and sickness. Another alternative is to empahsize weightage on applicational projects such as research and apprenticeship.
The above paragraph serves as solutions to not "over value" formal education system. To resurrect the apprehensive minds of these suggestions, according to 26 April 2002 issue of TIMEasia, recent math and science test scores has shown that U.S students are gaining ground on their counterparts in Asia. Hence less emphasis on formal education might not necessarily be detrimental.
Therefore, over valuing formal education is true, but restricted only to Asian countries.
Yes, formal education is over valued in the Asian countries but not in the Western.
According to http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/literacy/referencematerials/glossaryofliteracyterms/WhatIsFormalEducation.htm, formal education is the process of training and developing people in knowledge, skills, mind, and character in a structured and certified program.
As such, we can see that the content delivered through teaching is restricted and everyone experiences and learns the same thing. However, the stituation is slightly different now because governments like that of Singapore, are starting to realise the importance of indivdual education. In my opinion, different education systems support different eras. Formal education has produced dependable people for predictable times. Referring to a quote by Tharman Shanmugaratnam in the 26 April 2002 issue of TIMEasia, "now it needs to produce a new breed of leaders who have a certain ruggedness, an ability to repond quickly to situations", we can see that formal education now is not as over valued as compared in the past.
However, comparing Asia's education system to Western's, they are worlds apart. Switzerland is one good example of producing quality and skilled workers through their decentralised education system. They offer apprenticeship which lasts 2-4 years. Apprenticeships include all kinds of professions, from handicraft (mechanician, carpenter, baker, hairdresser etc.) to office worker (secretary, bookkeeper, IT specialist etc.). Apprentice will get trained at a company or organization, but also attend school for one or two days a week. Therefore students get to choose to take up their subjects of interests and receive lots of hands-on training. Such little empahsis on formal education sparks the interests and curiosity of the students and make learning a more cohesive one.
For all I know, Singapore has not yet gotten over its indulgence in formal education as can be seen in the latest alteration to the criteria for entering Junior colleges(JC). Co-curricular Activity (CCA) points are not considered for deduction of the O level raw score compared to the preceding years. Hence all JCs' intake of students will soley depend on their academic result. How justifiable is that!
I personally do not resent the score-materialistic assessment system of indivdual's knowledge. However I think that the weightage of marks can be distributed more evenly throughout the year instead of just focusing on the four main examinations which are CA1, SA1, CA2 and SA2 respectively. This is because the performance of an individual, I believe, can be affected by many other factors such as stress and sickness. Another alternative is to empahsize weightage on applicational projects such as research and apprenticeship.
The above paragraph serves as solutions to not "over value" formal education system. To resurrect the apprehensive minds of these suggestions, according to 26 April 2002 issue of TIMEasia, recent math and science test scores has shown that U.S students are gaining ground on their counterparts in Asia. Hence less emphasis on formal education might not necessarily be detrimental.
Therefore, over valuing formal education is true, but restricted only to Asian countries.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
The current hype over environment issues is unneccesary. Do you agree?
It has become part of our daily life that we hear about the rapid rate of carbon dioxide increment in our air and that the artic glaciers are melting faster than before. Countries are coming together to solve the problem of global warming and our governments are encouraging us to go green. However the question is: “Is our current hype over environmental issues unnecessary?” I do not think so. In my opinion it is necessary to start doing something but at the same time we should not be over exaggerate the situation.
To completely ignore the environment issues is wrong. It is a fact that the environment has been worsening due to the actions of man and that it is affecting our lives. It poses dangers to our future too. The author of article in The Straits Times, “Saving the World”, said that “If we do not have a good way to fix a problem, it might be better to focus on something else first. After all, when you do not know where the next meal is coming from, it is hard to worry about what global temperatures will be 100 years from now.” I feel that 100 years later, we still might not be able to see how bad environmental issues can turn out to be. So are we going to say the same thing again and focus on something else first? Shouldn’t we be taking actions and preventing things from getting worse instead of waiting till the future and regret in the end?
The problem comes in when the mass media tries to exaggerate the situation. From the article of “The truth about the environment”, the author has said that “environmental group need to be noticed by the mass media. They also need to keep the money rolling in. Understandably, perhaps, they sometimes exaggerate.” Indeed, the media plays a big role in educating and informing the masses about environmental issues. However, by exaggerating the situations just to increase profits is going against their professionalism. We should be telling the truth to the public and at the same time encourage the public to play a part in saving earth.
In response to Jinyi’s post, I do agree with her that it needs great cost to move everyone from earth to another planet light. We should not be standing around to wait for the scientists to come up with a solution. We need to conscientiously raise environmental issues in order to raise awareness of the dangers that we will soon be facing. Individuals have a choice to save the world or to be selfish beings and to wait for others to do something. So the challenge is how to spur the urgency in people without exaggerating facts.
To sum it up, I disagree that the current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary. We should still raise awareness in people.
To completely ignore the environment issues is wrong. It is a fact that the environment has been worsening due to the actions of man and that it is affecting our lives. It poses dangers to our future too. The author of article in The Straits Times, “Saving the World”, said that “If we do not have a good way to fix a problem, it might be better to focus on something else first. After all, when you do not know where the next meal is coming from, it is hard to worry about what global temperatures will be 100 years from now.” I feel that 100 years later, we still might not be able to see how bad environmental issues can turn out to be. So are we going to say the same thing again and focus on something else first? Shouldn’t we be taking actions and preventing things from getting worse instead of waiting till the future and regret in the end?
The problem comes in when the mass media tries to exaggerate the situation. From the article of “The truth about the environment”, the author has said that “environmental group need to be noticed by the mass media. They also need to keep the money rolling in. Understandably, perhaps, they sometimes exaggerate.” Indeed, the media plays a big role in educating and informing the masses about environmental issues. However, by exaggerating the situations just to increase profits is going against their professionalism. We should be telling the truth to the public and at the same time encourage the public to play a part in saving earth.
In response to Jinyi’s post, I do agree with her that it needs great cost to move everyone from earth to another planet light. We should not be standing around to wait for the scientists to come up with a solution. We need to conscientiously raise environmental issues in order to raise awareness of the dangers that we will soon be facing. Individuals have a choice to save the world or to be selfish beings and to wait for others to do something. So the challenge is how to spur the urgency in people without exaggerating facts.
To sum it up, I disagree that the current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary. We should still raise awareness in people.
Friday, May 9, 2008
The current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary. Do you agree?
I disagree that enviromental issues are covered extensively. Like what Lichun has mentioned in her post, if there is no publicity about the concerns about global environmental issues, no one would be actually concerned about our earth. In other words, the inhabitants of earth would be kept in the dark without knowing the threats and dangers that their mother earth is facing.
Rapid industrialisation, has benefitted us greatly in our quality of life. However, this has induced an array of problems e.g. Global warming due to excessive contribution of greenhouse gases. These problems will manifest itself so rapidly that its full magnitude would be difficult to be dealt with. Quoting statistics from an article in The straits times by Janadas Devan, the concentration of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere has grown from about 270 parts per million(ppm) in the industrial age to about 370 ppm now. Most climate change models specify concentrations above 550 ppm as life threatening and with carbon emissions increasing by 3 percent annually, concentrations of carbon dioxide molecules would reach 1,100 ppm by 2100, which is double the 'dangerous' level.
Year 2100 or looking in the short term, 2050, is not far ahead. We must take immediate actions to save our earth now if not, human race would be wiped out soon due to adverse climatic changes that are already showing their symptoms e.g. prolonged drought in australia and the recent cyclone in Myanmar that claimed 100,000 lives to date. Adopting Bjorn Lomborg's view to focus on something else if we do not have a good solution to a problem, we can view the current global crisis in a different light- that is to find alternative places to live in if our earth becomes unsuitable for life forms to flourish. Sourcing another planet with living conditions akin to earth is a great solution to the long term consequence of environmental problems happening concurrently. However, to move everyone from earth to another planet light years away would incur great financial costs which the poor cannot afford. And the current technology has yet to invent a spaceship that can house the masses. Hence instead of waiting in vain for these naive solutions, I wish to place great emphasis for the need to conscientiously raise environmental issues in order to raise awareness of the extinction our dear planet is facing.
We should not be easily complacent and assume the same calm and peaceful situation to continue to prevail. According to Straits Times sep 15 2007's article SAVING THE WORLD by Bjorn Lomborg, He does not see any point in worrying for our future as everything was smooth sailing then- food was becoming more plentiful and affordable and the proportion of those going hungry is expected to drop below 4%. He expected this postive trend to continue. However present statistics have greatly refuted his claim. According to http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-international.html, 854 million people across the world are hungry, up from 852 million between 2006 and 2007. Addtionally, the current big question of "should we sacrifice food to satiate the needs of industrialisation?" has sparked off an intense discussion if the switching of cultivating crops for food to biofuel should be stopped. The shift focus of producing crops for food to biofuel has created a new population of poverty. According to Times magazine Clean Energy Scam, those who used to be able to afford food now fall into the poverty category as production of food crops declines.
We cannot overgeneralise the trend for the future as the world is too fragile and susceptible to freak disasters mentioned above. Therefore i strongly disagree that the current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary.
In conclusion, there is a great need for the extensive raising of environmental concerns to the public. Only one species can save our mother earth, and that is us.
I disagree that enviromental issues are covered extensively. Like what Lichun has mentioned in her post, if there is no publicity about the concerns about global environmental issues, no one would be actually concerned about our earth. In other words, the inhabitants of earth would be kept in the dark without knowing the threats and dangers that their mother earth is facing.
Rapid industrialisation, has benefitted us greatly in our quality of life. However, this has induced an array of problems e.g. Global warming due to excessive contribution of greenhouse gases. These problems will manifest itself so rapidly that its full magnitude would be difficult to be dealt with. Quoting statistics from an article in The straits times by Janadas Devan, the concentration of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere has grown from about 270 parts per million(ppm) in the industrial age to about 370 ppm now. Most climate change models specify concentrations above 550 ppm as life threatening and with carbon emissions increasing by 3 percent annually, concentrations of carbon dioxide molecules would reach 1,100 ppm by 2100, which is double the 'dangerous' level.
Year 2100 or looking in the short term, 2050, is not far ahead. We must take immediate actions to save our earth now if not, human race would be wiped out soon due to adverse climatic changes that are already showing their symptoms e.g. prolonged drought in australia and the recent cyclone in Myanmar that claimed 100,000 lives to date. Adopting Bjorn Lomborg's view to focus on something else if we do not have a good solution to a problem, we can view the current global crisis in a different light- that is to find alternative places to live in if our earth becomes unsuitable for life forms to flourish. Sourcing another planet with living conditions akin to earth is a great solution to the long term consequence of environmental problems happening concurrently. However, to move everyone from earth to another planet light years away would incur great financial costs which the poor cannot afford. And the current technology has yet to invent a spaceship that can house the masses. Hence instead of waiting in vain for these naive solutions, I wish to place great emphasis for the need to conscientiously raise environmental issues in order to raise awareness of the extinction our dear planet is facing.
We should not be easily complacent and assume the same calm and peaceful situation to continue to prevail. According to Straits Times sep 15 2007's article SAVING THE WORLD by Bjorn Lomborg, He does not see any point in worrying for our future as everything was smooth sailing then- food was becoming more plentiful and affordable and the proportion of those going hungry is expected to drop below 4%. He expected this postive trend to continue. However present statistics have greatly refuted his claim. According to http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-international.html, 854 million people across the world are hungry, up from 852 million between 2006 and 2007. Addtionally, the current big question of "should we sacrifice food to satiate the needs of industrialisation?" has sparked off an intense discussion if the switching of cultivating crops for food to biofuel should be stopped. The shift focus of producing crops for food to biofuel has created a new population of poverty. According to Times magazine Clean Energy Scam, those who used to be able to afford food now fall into the poverty category as production of food crops declines.
We cannot overgeneralise the trend for the future as the world is too fragile and susceptible to freak disasters mentioned above. Therefore i strongly disagree that the current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary.
In conclusion, there is a great need for the extensive raising of environmental concerns to the public. Only one species can save our mother earth, and that is us.
Environment
Application Question:
- The current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary. Do you agree?
According to Bjorn Lomborg in "Saving the World", the current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary. Rather, he felt that we should stop worrying about the future and instead, quit panicking and start thinking calmly to ensure that we focus on the right issues. According to him, we can afford to do so because worldwide incomes have increased more than threefold and these positive trends are expected to continue.
On the contrary, I can only see that increasing worldwide incomes would mean that current hype of environmental is necessary. With incomes rising, people would also become more busy with their work and industries would become more intense with their production. Who would have the time and energy to bother about things like the environment? Hence, a hype would be required to draw attention to environmental issues and increase more awareness in them so that more effort would be put in to tackle them. Therefore, I do no t agree that the current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary.
As Michael Pollan put it in "The Way We Live Now Why Bother?", "If enough other people bother, each one influencing yet another in a chain reaction of behavioral change, markets for all manner of green products and alternative technologies will proper and expand." The environmental issues that we are currently facing are in dire states an d the only way to solve it is to ensure that there is a massive global commitment. Firstly, industries would be required to explore new forms of environmentally -friendly technologies. Secondly, governments would have to introduce new legislations to help restrict carbon emissions, thereby slowing down further deterioration of environmental problems. Lastly, not to forget every individual who have to play their part in saving energy and opting for environmentally-friendlier products.
Therefore, it is important to raise consciousness in people to counter the environmental issues and the current hype seems to be very effective in doing so. For example, the build up in the attention for environmental issues has created a surge for energy efficiency – photovoltaic solar panels have made significant improvements while researchers are currently finding a way to store wind power. Thus, the current hype has created urgency within the people to do something about the environmental issues.
In conclusion, we cannot just "quit panicking and start thinking calmly" because this would not create a sense of urgency within people to boost efforts in tackling environmental issue. So, I do not agree that the current hype over environmental issues is not unnecessary, as it is essential to ensure ongoing environment-saving efforts.
With reference to:
AJC reading package on environment
"Why Green is the New Red, White and Blue" by Bryan Walsh, Time magazine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)