<p>yea…xcept all 3 room types for prpg but only 2 room types of river view</p>
<p>ook…ive given kuok as well as 3rd choice…</p>
<p>NUS is a horrible school. All they do is to brag and brag about their rankings. But if you take a look at their students, none of them are really capable. They memorise textbooks for Alevels to score good grades to get in. But if you track their career, a large percentage didnt make it in their career, forever a middle class worker. Typical Singaporean, will never think out of the box. Thats why we top the world for maths and science but we never have a nobel prize winner. </p>
<p>SMU. A self acclaimed wharton but nowhere close. Please! Having a wharton curriculum doesnt gurantee a wharton quality. It still described itself as American Business School + LIBERAL ARTS. What a load of crap they have!</p>
<p>Okay Zimmerman, you’re a little extreme there. But not entirely groundless though. 
</p>
<p>Yes I do find it a little repulsive that NUS keeps bragging about its inflated ranking (which it doesn’t really deserves), but which university wouldn’t? Especially in a ranking-conscious society like Singapore, it’s understandable that they want to publicize that NUS is on even footing with the Ivy League and other top universities in the world. NUS students, or rather, Singaporean students in general, yes, do memorize textbooks. But it’s not so much of their fault as it is the education system’s fault. The education system encourages rout-learning so in order to succeed in the system, you need to memorize. It’s obviously not wrong to do what it takes to succeed in the system. And while we can conclude that Singaporean students do memorize, or mug, we can’t conclude that they can’t think. I mean, that they are not really required to think, doesn’t mean they can’t think right? And besides, tertiary institutions may be a little different from what we’ve experienced in pre-tertiary education. So let’s not be so categorical here. </p>
<p>And yes, I am quite disgusted with SMU’s self-proclaiment of a Singapore Wharton which offers a liberal arts education too. First of all, the quality of students are in no where close to Wharton, and secondly, a business school can’t possibly offer liberal arts, what with all the courses given a business and economic slant. I think even NTU can do a better job at providing liberal arts colleges, given its bid to expand into a comprehensive university. </p>
<p>It’s funny though, how we bash our own universities yet people from the region seems to look forward to coming here, with so many of the threads on a US college admission forums dedicated to NUS and SMU. Admittedly, the pasture on the other side is always greener. But then, you don’t see Americans bashing their colleges, nor British critisizing their universities, as fervently as we do. So something might be really wrong with us - or with our universities.</p>
<p>Maybe Singaporeans are just prone to complaining; I confess to be very guilty of that too. :o We want a world class research university, but would we pay higher tuition fees to increase university endowment? No way! </p>
<p>NUS is a decent university given its history (or lack thereof), and I certainly wouldn’t say all A Level students only know how to memorise. Surely one with the brain capacity to swallow Campbell for biology would have the potential to THINK. The quality of students in NUS is not across the board bad obviously, the students in medicine faculty are honestly top notch - anyone there would survive very well in an Ivy. And from what I’ve heard of NUS, thinking is appreciated, as with everywhere else. Everyone I’ve spoken to said that if you memorise, a second upper class is attainable; but you really need that something special to get a first class - and that is the ability to think independently. Don’t generalise like the US liberal arts system emphasises thinking only - don’t student memorise words/techniques just for SATs as well? We just have to play the game in school, but when enter the workplace we just have to prove ourselves. By the way, has anyone seen the American APs for that matter? Do you really think they DON’T encourage memorising?</p>
<p>With regards to SMU, I think I’ve commented enough about their marketing. What annoys me more is the fact that people can actually fall for it hook, line and sinker and imagine that they can transfer to UPenn and get their Wharton degree. Pipe-dreams, more like.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dude… I think you are kinda outdated since you have taken the poly route. You should know that nowadays, questions aren’t taken directly out from textbooks. Questions for A levels are more application based, which require you to think critically and analytically. In fact, I can honestly tell you that the revamped Singapore-Cambridge A levels is in fact one of the hardest exams in the world. And again, I disagree with you saying that “none of them are really capable” because the research churn out at NUS arent exactly that bad to say the least. The only problem I think about Singaporean students is that they lack that adventurous spirit. Most people’s dream will be to Study hard —> Get into good schools —> Get a scholarship (preferably PSC) and get into a top uni —> get a good job with a solid income (Singapore’s ministers are paid one of the highest in the world: Nathan is paid like >2 million a year whereas Bush is paid like USD 200000 a year!!) —> Rise through the ranks of civil service —> Get higher pay each year —> Retire comfortably and enjoy their golden age with erm perhaps some specially created positions for them like Senior Teacher-Mentor or erm Minister Mentor.</p>
<p>And seriously, SMU isn’t as bad as you think. I really like their philosophy. 
The only issue I have with local unis is that the curriculum is too narrow and they take in poly students. Do note that I am not against poly students but I think that because they specialize too early, they lack the knowledge outside their field of study. Which makes them a bit parochial in my opinion. But SMU is doing a great job of allowing a more flexible curriculum. And I like their elective modules of allowing students to take courses from Political Science, Sociology and blah blah blah. Seriously, an education is more of what you made of it. And I feel that SMU provides you with the kind of opportunities.</p>
<p>Kenyon: I think Singaporeans are unadventurous because Singapore is an unforgiving society. How many of us would love to take an unconventional route, but wouldn’t because we can’t afford to take risks?</p>
<p>Actually this has to do with the PAP’s style of grooming leaders. When you provide too much an incentive to be like them or one of them, you stifled creativity and the adventurous spirit. The risk with the unconventional route isn’t that much in my opinion. But it’s the incentive that is the crux of the problem. Most of my friends are working towards 1 goal: President scholarship. And what are those selection criterias? Apart from academic excellence, your performance in NS matters a lot. And you should know that being obedient is highly looked up upon whereas dissent is generally frowned upon.</p>
<p>I have seen how my sister study for her As… using the rote learning method and she did well. Those who read up more on subjects and didn’t follow textbooks did not do well. </p>
<p>You said the MOE revamped the system, bear in mind that theres a chinese say “change soup, but not the medicine” <== u translate it to chinese, u will understand.</p>
<p>Talents. How do you define a talent? Singapore definitely is not a place for the talented. Look at how we choose the talents. Instead of the great thinkers, we chose the great memorisers. Look at the new politicians of this year election, all they do is hide behind the “big shots”. Unlike the opposition who dare to stand up for themselves. Now take a look at the big shot of our system, their parents pave way for them in good positions, and you call that talent.</p>
<p>You said many don’t wanna to take the conventional route but its because they are not willing to take risk. Look at all the great entrepreneurs, they dare to take risks and strike out something for themselves. Thats the problem with singapore, education are used to train people as workers instead of improving them as a person, their thinking and wisdom. Singaporean youth are always to be said as “lucky”, it is beacuse they get all their material needs satisfy. But not many of them have great visions, goals for themselves and the world. They ain’t willing to get out of their comfort zone and try new things. To me, Singaporeans youth are really pathetic because they are not living their own life, but lives of others- the lives of their parents and lee kuan yew.</p>
<p>“Most people’s dream will be to Study hard —> Get into good schools —> Get a scholarship (preferably PSC) and get into a top uni —> get a good job with a solid income (Singapore’s ministers are paid one of the highest in the world: Nathan is paid like >2 million a year whereas Bush is paid like USD 200000 a year!!) —> Rise through the ranks of civil service —> Get higher pay each year —> Retire comfortably and enjoy their golden age with erm perhaps some specially created positions for them like Senior Teacher-Mentor or erm Minister Mentor.”</p>
<p>Good results= good school= good career= good life</p>
<p>this no longer work in the 21st century. look at the 3 of the top technopreneurs- michael dell, gates, steve jobs, they are dropouts without a degree. Yet, they are very successful in their fields.</p>
<p>quoted from kenyon</p>
<p>" The only issue I have with local unis is that the curriculum is too narrow and they take in poly students. Do note that I am not against poly students but I think that because they specialize too early, they lack the knowledge outside their field of study." </p>
<p>Obviously you have something against poly students. Nevermind, im not gonna indulge myself in arguing with you. But just wanna tell, change you elitist mindset. You think its gonna take you far? Think again.</p>
<p>I dare to tell you im not inferior to you, you arrogant bigot.</p>
<p>Hey Zimmerman no need to sling mud; it’s just a discussion. :)</p>
<p>I have nothing against poly students either, but I wish we wouldn’t start producing a dichotomy that says “A Level students = book smart, poly student = street smart”. Clearly many students have a combination of both. I didn’t follow the textbook (there wasn’t one); I read up widely on my subject. I loved the subject; I didn’t study it for the sake of getting my A, but in the end I did get my A. Just because I did the A Levels doesn’t mean I only know how to memorise, nor does it mean I am not capable of intellectual discourse beyond my books.</p>
<p>Singapore is not socially mobile - it is not like America. There is one and only one Sim Wong Hoo and few are ever going to live this dream. Bill Gates was a drop out, but he was good enough to get into Harvard. Do we still call him someone without an education but who could succeed in life? We can quote all the success stories we like - but we have to admit it - this is the minority. </p>
<p>I understand you may be disillusioned with the education system in Singapore. In fact I agree that Singapore is an exam based meritocracy and not a talent based one. But like you said, we can’t define talent, and if someone is really talented, it’s up to them to dare to dream instead of hoping that the education system will do it for them. How old is Singapore as a country, and were the original aims of education? That will explain why the system is currently imperfect. Imperfect, but evolving. You may not agree with how Singaporean youths think, but that doesn’t make them pathetic. Each to his own.</p>
<p>Finally, are the opposition politicians not Singaporeans? Are some of them not a product of the Singapore education system? I have a lot to say about how being anti-establishment is “fashionable” now, but I don’t think this should degenerate into a political discussion. :p</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dude, sorry if I sounded kinda vitriolic but I have nothing against poly students. If there’s anything I am against, it will be the Singapore’s education in general. I think all the streamings and such is detrimental to students. Because let’s face it, Poly provides more of a practical kind of education not so much “holistic and all-rounded”. One really need to venture out of his/her comfort zone to read books that are not required in classes and such. There will of course be students who are motivated enough. But if I am in a poly now, I can honestly tell you that I wouldnt take the initiative to do that. I am against the Singapore’s education policies, not poly students duh… I hope this clear things up. I am pretty sure our universities will be much better without all the streamings at such an early age.</p>
<p>If you look at the education system in the US, there’s no such things as Poly. Everyone go into their tertiary education upon graduation from High School. This allows everyone plenty of time to develop and bloom. There, you can choose whether you want a more practical-based or a theory-based education.</p>
<p>why is NUS considered “poly”?? dont universities have to have “polytechnic” in their name to be considered poly?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>WOW, I am very passionate about Economics and have read up extensively (beyond the syllabus required) but I still got my A eventually. </p>
<p>
No, it still does work in the 21st century, in a small sunny island called Singapore. That is why creativity is stifled where following the norms is encouraged because the incentive for that (PSC scholarship) is ridiculously high. If you are a SAFOS scholar, you get your monthly pay while still studying in COllege!!</p>
<p>
Woebegone: Do you know that students in Wharton has the chance to do “liberal arts”?</p>
<p>Zimmerman, you are adopting a deliberately negative stance by using a single example (your sister) to generalise a trend. It’s like saying I saw a black cow and therefore all cows are black. I sincerely believe that no subject at “A” Levels can be studied by rote learning alone, especially General Paper. Scoring in the subject depends on aptitude, hard work, consistency and many other factors. I am not trying to discredit poly education but i am saying that JC does not pale in comparison either. </p>
<p>I do concur with you on the fact that many youths in our country are unwilling to make unconventional choices but I would not account it solely to our education system. In fact, I believe that our education system has little to do with it since we are always given a variety of choices in our educational pursuits. Being ability-driven, we are streamed constantly to ensure we receive the education that fits our talents and skills best. True enough, polys and other less treaded choices are bieng frowned upon but does that not go back to jeremy’s point on Singapore being an unforgiving society. </p>
<p>The government spends more money on polys and ITEs than JCs. JCs were not even mentioned in the PMs rally speech. Doesn’t that show that the government is more willing to cultivate more talents? Since by your logic, JC students are nothing but muggers. Singapore is certainly not the only place in which the parent’s influence paves the way for children; it happens everywhere. </p>
<p>There is indeed reason for you to get upset if the education you received is being belittled but that is no excuse to downright condemn our society like that. I think we should respect each other for the choices we make for they are made with integrity and accountablity.</p>
<p>Hey can i ask you guys something… if you guys had to choose between NUS or U of Melbourne which one would u choose for engineering??</p>
<p>I thought this is highly relavant in our discussion over here:
<a href=“http://i-speak.blogdrive.com/archive/160.html[/url]”>http://i-speak.blogdrive.com/archive/160.html</a></p>
<p>And do note that she is a student in a JC currently. And she obviously does not comes out as elitist to me.</p>
<p>If cost is not a factor, I think I would choose U of Melbourne for the social scene and experience of an overseas education. But in terms of coursework, research and internship opportunities, exhange programmes and job placements, NUS is pretty much better. It also depends on the intended major; chemical engineering is highly competitive in NUS and the graduates are highly employable. I think being a leading research institution, UM would place more emphasis on its graduate school as compared to the undergraduate level. Then again, I never researched UM as much as NUS and it was never one of my options. So please pardon me if I got my facts wrong, just wanted to share my opinion.</p>