I have given up reading theStraits Stooge Times Forum for quite some time, because of the immense idiocy displayed by some of the writers, not to mention the perception that certain writers are favored and their letters are always posted. This piece first came from a friend on Plurk, which blogger deadpris has already commented on.
Apr 15, 2010
University Admission – JC students deserve priority
Polytechnics lure students with glossy brochures and spiels about their fabulous courses, but fail to tell them how difficult it is for them to enter local universities via the poly route.
How many 16-year-olds will forgo sexy-sounding courses like communications and finance over subjects like physics, chemistry or mathematics?
Ironically, these polytechnic brochures often boast of how many of their graduates enter university. But they are silent on the reality that employers value degrees more than diplomas.
Polytechnic graduates cannot have it both ways. They must know the government spends more to train a polytechnic graduate than a junior college (JC) student.
So they cannot expect a second bite of the cherry with the same priority in university admission as JC students who complete two years of school and hold only an A-level certificate.
Polytechnics pride themselves on hands-on training while JCs arm a student with more in-depth grounding in core subjects to prepare them for university.
To JC students, university is and has always been their final destination. To poly students, their end point, in Singapore at least, should be their diploma.
If they want to go beyond that in Singapore, they should choose the JC route. If they do not qualify, it is not the government’s fault.
Nothing should stop them from pursuing their dream overseas, but they cannot expect greater access to local universities just because it is costlier to study abroad.
A place in a good local university is a limited resource and should go to the most deserving; in this case, those who qualify for JC and have consciously decided to take the JC path to prepare themselves for a university education and not a diploma.
In the past, a JC education was called ‘pre-university’ education, and it is precisely that.
So it is time polytechnic graduates accepted the implications of their decision to choose between polytechnics and JCs, and not gripe that the system is unfair.
Lee Beng Tat
I am a mere polytechnic graduate who has never gone to university, and I strongly disagree with Lee Beng Tat’s discrimination against polytechnic graduates. A semi-Beng like myself calls this piece: talking cock [讲鸟话]. Lee Beng Tat can call me crude, lowly educated or lacking in culture for all I cared. I simply refuse to ‘cum all over him with an exercise of vocabulary masturbation’.
First of all, it is utterly ludicrous to compare a degree and a diploma to justify that JC students deserved priority. It is my considered opinion that the qualifications obtained by a JC student and their polytechnic counterparts should be the standard used to determine whether a candidate is qualified for a place in the university. Yet, Lee Beng Tat is not comparing the merits between a JC student’s ‘A’ Level certification with that of a diploma. Instead, he compared the ‘perceived value’ between a degree holder and a diploma holder to an employer to lay the foundation of his argument.
He suggest that because a degree holder will be paid better, polytechnic graduates thus suffer some kind of penis degree envy and covet it. He even goes so far to suggest they should not regret a ‘bad choice’ – i.e. taking the polytechnic path instead of the JC one – they made earlier in their lives. Are we forgetting that it is a secondary school leaver (typically a 16 year-old) who will be making the decision on which academic path to take, and this decision is is also affected by a person’s academic performance at that time?
On top of which, his views also fly in the face of the government gahmen’s call for people to retrain, raise their qualifications or stay relevant to the workforce. In fact, Lee Beng Tat’s ’employer perceived value’ argument ironically reminds me that a polytechnic graduate probably still enjoyed better employment opportunities compared to a JC students only ‘A’ level qualifications just like a decade and a half ago when I joined the workforce. In fact, it is even debatable whether someone with just ‘A’ level qualifications would be better off competing with a person with an ITC cert for a better paying job.
Anyway, I apply a very simple principle on all arguments – i.e. when you used it to argue against something, you shouldn’t be arguing against it when the same argument is used against you. It is a good principle to apply because a harebrained argument is usually a great counter on its own when applied on the person who made it. Take for e.g. there is this argument that since homosexuality is observed in some animals, it is thus ‘natural and normal’. By that same argument, why are we against polygamy, or the killing of another man and his kids to take his wife?
Since Lee Beng Tat has argued against polytechnic graduates using the ’employer perceived value’ of an academic certification, in the absence of the merits of why a JC student’s qualification should be given priority I would apply the same argument. Based on that very argument, it is not hard to notice that ‘A’ level qualifications is worth even less! Lee Beng Tat had a lot of gall to he argue that JC students deserve priority! If ‘living with the consequences of one’s decision’ is what Lee Beng Tat preaches, he should be preaching it more to JC students.
Perhaps due to the realisation of the shortcoming of his argument, Lee Beng Tat thus made the audacious comment that because ‘the gahmen spends more to train a polytechnic graduate than a junior college (JC) student’, a polytechnic graduate should thus not ask for more to gain entry to university. That reminds me of a discussion a long time ago, when I mentioned that bursaries should only be given to those bright sparks whose parents have some difficulties providing for their studies. To simplify, it is called the ‘if your parents are rich, then even if you do well, you shouldn’t get a bursary since your parents can afford to send you to school anyway’ argument. I also argued that because resources are limited, it should be reserved for the poor but bright students who are thus ‘more deserving’.
Everyone I shared this idea with either politely declined to comment or disagreed. Many reminded me that the only requirement for one to qualify for bursary would be one’s grades. No one is any less ‘deserving’ because he is better off. In Lee Beng Tat’s case, why should polytechnic graduates be less that JC students simply because more money has been spent to train him?
Argue against Polytechnic graduates that their curriculum might not adequately prepare them for university compared to that of a JC, and I might just keep my mouth shut. But putting them down as lesser people or presenting them in a bad light only show everyone just how myopic and narrow-minded Lee Boon Tat is.
Either way, I really cannot expect more from a letter to the Stooge Times Forum. There is no lower level it can sink to.
