<p>on a completely random note, I think it’s fascinating to read this thread from the beginning and see how many people have faded in and out of this thread’s history.</p>
<p>You have too much time on your hands.</p>
<p>Soon to be us though. =)</p>
<p>hi I’m a new member. Do you guys believe in some ways that can lead you to top uni like Stanford or MIT? If so…, why don’t you whisper us?</p>
<p>^ Do what you like and can do well in. Be passionate about it. Don’t attempt to create any fake persona to present to the admissions officer - they will see through it. Finally, enjoy your JC life =p.</p>
<p>Read the accepted students statistics in HYP’s forums, and the list of “great” ECs in the Chances forum, get thoroughly demoralized and go to NUS. But seriously, there’s no magic formula. If you are in J2, it’s probably too late. If you are in sec 4, there’s still a chance.</p>
<p>Can’t believe I haven’t stumbled across this thread before. -headdesk- Hi there!</p>
<p>Got a question for anyone who has applied/is applying to Columbia: in the portion that asks you to describe your activities during the past two summers, do we use the American summer (June - August-ish or something) or the Singapore year-end holidays (Nov - Dec)? Thanks!</p>
<p>of course there’re surefire ways to get into HYPSM. one of them is to get an international olympiad medal. or represent singapore in a sport. represent the nation (if representation is through a highly selective process) or even win in a very visible and prestigious international competition, mainly. but it begs the question: would you enjoy your sec school and JC years involved in stuff that you may not like? are you willing to pay that price if need be?</p>
<p>and nyklen yeah you can definitely put that, since they basically wanna know what you did outside the school term. but if u wanna be sure, you could always email columbia.</p>
<p>Before the next round of Ivies Fanatics starts to get all worked up to exhaust their energy, contacts and money on getting into the big HYPSM. I thought I’ll repost my previous post to give all the newbies some perspective. Of course, it’s entirely your and your parents choice and money.</p>
<hr>
<p>Credentials: Ph.D. graduate student at UCLA
Program: Applied Linguistics</p>
<p>Thoughts: Having gone through years in the educational and academia scene (I spent 4 years teaching Sec and JC students in Singapore, got my B.A. and M.A. in NUS, taught 4 quarters of US undergrads in UCLA as teaching assistant, did research assistant work for professor), I believe I may have some words of advice for Singaporeans (especially those in JCs with high hopes and expectations of studying in a prestigious US university).</p>
<p>(1) Really consider LACs: Major US research university in the US are famous because they do research and produce results. Which means their financial resources are dumped on recruiting ‘superstar’ professors and they concentrate on graduate students. Profs are focused on doing their own thing. All these means that undergrads are undercut in the process. LACs on the other hand do not have graduate programs and Profs main task is teaching well.</p>
<p>(2)Really consider NUS: Having personally seen the caliber and academic scene of the undergraduate program here, I have began to appreciate the academic rigor that NUS does provide. I agree that NUS may not accord the same amount of prestige as some US universities, but if you intend to go on to graduate school, you may be better off getting a solid foundation at NUS or one of the LACs. If you do not intend to go on to graduate school, then maybe the prestige of a US degree may get you somewhere…initially.</p>
<p>(3) Look ahead…really ahead: This point is related to point (2). If you are not committed to get a Ph.D. at the end of the day, or thinking that ‘I’m just going to get my undergrad degree and find a nice cozy job’, then where you get your degree may not matter that much! Yes, life after school is cut-throat, and climbing the career ladder depends much more on political acumen and guile. If you’re committed to going on to a Ph.D. program, then again it may not be such a good idea to get into a major US research university! As with point (1), you are getting undercut academically as an undergrad there; plus there is a possibility that competing with ‘too much brains’ might end you up with an ‘average’ that does not look good on a grad school application. And LACs have a huge success rate at sending their undergrads to prestigious grad school program, do the research!</p>
<p>In a nutshell, Singaporeans tends to overrate US and UK Uni, often at the expense of denigrating NUS, which is sad. Yes, undergrad education in NUS IS academically rigorous. And all the hype about ‘personal journey enlightenment and discovery’, I don’t think you need a US or UK university to do that, just don’t depend on your parents too much might do the trick. And about ‘academic and political freedom’, I think we need to understand academic and politics before freedom. Usually pple want freedom without working for it (read ‘speech without responsibility’), so I suggest understanding whatever you want to understand first (understand as in read and learn, not what you think it is), which for all purposes can be done adequately at NUS, before yielding to freedom.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why doesn’t the ruling government apply this principle to itself? Or is it above Law? So it can make up nonsense like “Asian values,” but forbid the common people from having the same ability?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>whether our speech is with or without “responsibility”, we have the RIGHT to speech. and, horrors of horrors, we need to “earn” our basic rights and freedom? </p>
<p>i don’t think our supposed immaturity is anyone’s business. nor does it mean we shouldn’t apply to top US/UK universities. also, because we supposedly don’t understand “academics and politics”, we should go to and try to understand them at a local university that does NOT have those freedoms, or is extremely limited in that respect? what kind of logic is that?</p>
<p>the whole point of going to university is to LEARN. learn all of the above, and more, if you haven’t already learned them. i think you’ve missed that point by a mile.</p>
<p>I reposted a previous msg. My original post had a context, which was to answer an argument from someone that overseas universities provide the ‘academic and political freedom’, which is supposedly the main reason for his/her choice of not studying locally, that is to be able to say/write/do what he/she wants without fear of any sanctions from teachers/administration etc. I do not dispute rights to speech nor have I suggested you should earn your rights to speak before you can actually speak. That is why speaking nonsense, profanities, illogically or simply irresponsibly are not sanctioned by law (unless you attack and defame others). However, if you have been educated well enough, you would know that you do not speak inconsequentially. You are responsible for what you say, how you portray yourself and backing your statements with actions or evidence. That is why “I SUGGEST understanding” first “before YIELDING to freedom”. My choice of words are clear in saying that I DO NOT propose that rights to talk are ‘earned’; you have a choice to portray yourself as immature if it pleases you, I was only suggesting that you do not because what you say is consequential. It is with this in mind that I had commented on ‘academic and political freedom’.</p>
<p>“And about ‘academic and political freedom’, I think we need to understand academic and politics before freedom”</p>
<p>I think most pple will agree that the above statement has nothing to do with understanding/learning/researching academic or politics per se as a subject/field. The clause ‘understand academic and politics before freedom’ is a play with words found immediately prior to this in the adverbial “And about ‘academic and political freedom’”, which is a common term that can be paraphrased generally as “rights of speech”. It means to say, in simple layman English, you need to understand what you’re talking and writing about before you start to talk and write about them! And that is the basis when I state that NUS is fully capable and adequate in providing that foundational education.</p>
<p>My post is clear in its context, which is to comment on the merits of LACs and local universities over large research-oriented universities, where most Singaporeans pursuing an undergrad degree tend to focus on. I have NEVER said anything about knowing before learning, or that we should understand a subject matter before we learned them! What I did stress, however, is that it is important for an undergrad to understand that, despite what they think, undergrad education IS foundational. Everything before that was to provide you with the cognitive analytical skills to understand the subject matter you major in. And that it is important to have that strong foundational understanding of what you want freedom to comment on BEFORE you comment on them. That is the crux of my post above.</p>
<p>Your post suggest that you have missed MY point by a mile.</p>
<p>Thank you for the much-needed clarification. However, let me quote what you said for reference here:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The task of understanding cannot be separated from the environment in which you spend four years understanding “academics and politics”. You suggest that NUS could very well provide a good foundational education for any field of interest, and I don’t dispute that. You can tell that I was more concerned about the “freedom” portion than the actual understanding part. MY question is: do NUS, NTU or SMU, or are they able to, provide a good “foundational education” in the “responsible” use of one’s freedoms? You talk so much and so loudly about how “it is important to have that strong foundational understanding of what you want freedom to comment on BEFORE you comment on them”, but you don’t show any appreciation for a university education that provides room for students to exercise their rights to freedom and, in doing so, learn how to exercise their rights “responsibly” - which is equally important. </p>
<p>You assume that everything will fall into space after the foundational hard learning, and go on to quickly and unthinkingly dismiss those who say they want “academic and political freedom” in their college education. You condescendingly tell them to go understand what they want to say before they say it, but forget that understanding is a mere exercise in futility if they aren’t equipped with the skills to use that freedom of speech.</p>
<p>As mentioned above, your argument is best encapsulated in this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even assuming that understanding and learning how to use that understanding COULD viably be separated, it is obviously the most effective if the two process take place together and build upon or modify each other.</p>
<p>Maybe it’s due to the fact that you had the privilege of enjoying the freedom afforded to you by UCLA after a “foundational education” at NUS. That’s probably the cause of your subconscious assumption that it’s natural and viable for everyone else to undergo the same learning progression from foundational education (locally) to expression (locally or overseas). It was a simple two-step process for you. But not everyone gets to go overseas after NUS to enjoy the freedom - and, frankly speaking, nobody gets to enjoy complete freedom to learn how to use their knowledge or “foundational education” if they stay in Singapore after NUS, anyway. Not everyone gets two steps to learn. Forgive us for having the nerve to want to combine them into one.</p>
<p>Frankly, I have never understood this prevalent assumption that a local education at NUS/NTU/SMU works to stifle any kind of ‘freedom’ (I do believe you have not studied at NUS or any local universities, but do correct me if I’m wrong). </p>
<p>If we are talking about a pedagogical strategy between ‘foundational hard learning (read-learn-question-comment)’ vs. ‘say-whatever-you-want-until-you-figure-it-out-yourself’ constructivist model; then yes, I believe there’s much to be said for ‘foundational hard learning’. </p>
<p>If we are talking about the real “academic and political freedom”, which means to say the freedom to criticize and fault current policies, popular beliefs, academic trends etc., then even with retrospective experience, I do not see how that is stifled or harshly prevented at NUS/NTU/SMU (remembering that my original context was talking about the learning environment for undergraduates). In fact, I remember fondly that we were even encouraged to we do that (and that was years ago) in tutorial lessons, with the professor assuming we have done our readings, and waiting for us to freely give our comments, whatever our comments were. In this scenario (which I believe still happens everyday at NUS/NTU/SMU and probably in most universities around the world), there are always three kinds of students: One type choose to remain quiet either because he’s shy or because he knows he’s not done the readings and therefore not justified/qualified to make any valid comments; type two choose to speak confidently about what he knows and understands from the readings, asks intelligent questions and is free to critique or fault without sanctions from the professor; and then there’s type three, who feels he has to speak (or feels compelled to speak), but says things that makes type two and the professor go ‘huh?’ or ‘duh…’, either because he has not read or did not understand adequately, afterwhich the professor would most definitely correct him. </p>
<p>Therefore, it is NOT that I "don’t show any appreciation for a university education that provides room for students to exercise their rights to freedom and, in doing so, learn how to exercise their rights responsibly’', it is because I have never felt and still do not feel that this right was ever deprived from me at NUS, hence my statement “which for all purpose can be done adequately at NUS”.</p>
<p>I do NOT “quickly and unthinkingly dismiss those who say they want ‘academic and political freedom’ in their college education”. I dismiss those who says that wants “academic and political freedom” without responsibility (read AGAIN ‘speech without responsibility’); and disagree with those that says the local universities are inadequate in providing such an environment.</p>
<p>Hence I did NOT ‘forget’ about the ‘skills’ needed for speaking (you paraphrased that into ‘freedom of speech’) because I do not think it was ever deprived. In fact, it is exactly because they are able to exercise that right locally in Singapore that it is imperative for understanding to be emphasized, that understanding comes BEFORE freedom of speech. If I appear condescending, then it is directed at those who thinks freedom of speech comes before understanding.</p>
<p>When you say understanding and how to use that understanding, it’s clear to me you’re talking about a developing cognitive state vs. an action (speaking and doing). They do ‘build upon and modify each other’, but that already presupposes a sequential order. I have NOT proposed they are independent of each other, but have said that it is important to understand however much you can understand BEFORE you act, simply because acting/speaking is consequential. You are free to say what you want, just as long as you remember you’re taking responsibility for it. You will learn from it, no doubt, but only after you’re sanctioned for it. As my above example tries to exemplify, this IS done and done adequately at a local university.</p>
<p>I did NOT enjoy ‘the freedom’ at UCLA after NUS, both foundational education and expression were available to me at NUS. It was never a two-step process, it was always integrated, and nobody needs to take a second step after NUS to enjoy ‘the freedom’.</p>
<p>Finally, I do agree with you about ‘nobody gets to enjoy complete freedom (of speech) to use their knowledge’, but that applies everywhere, not only in Singapore. Try to stir racial/ethnic discrimination, or defame someone, in the U.S. and I’m sure it will be consequential. If anything, I would say Singapore is most concerned about getting pple to learn how to exercise their rights ‘responsibly’.</p>
<p>Hey guys, In Your Opinion, is getting into MIT as an international more difficult or getting into Stanford as an international needing Financial Aid more difficult?</p>
<p>nope, and in fact I’m going to America to study next year. But I think that the freedom in universities could never far exceed the freedom of the society from which it draws its administrators, faculty and students, or indeed, the society which it shapes. Being a Singaporean citizen for the past 20 years, I don’t think that Singapore is very free, and universities in this country probably aren’t too much better. Singaporeans enjoy freedom (incl. of speech) in many respects, but definitely not when it comes to politics or the media etc. You can choose to disagree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s subjective. Could it be because what you did, or wanted to do, never demanded enough freedom to the point that boundaries were tested? I can think of a few things from Western universities that I’d never see happen on a local campus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you could never see from our point of view. Anyway, it’s still personal choice. We can choose to speak without an iota of responsibility or understanding if we choose to, but obviously that can’t happen under this country’s government. There’s nothing wrong with going elsewhere to do so. I guess you can’t stand watching us do that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>what sequential order? I thought I made it pretty clear that they happen simultaneously. anyway, I don’t think I ever claimed that nobody could speak freely at all on local campuses. The freedom is just comparatively smaller. Whether the students don’t feel deprived of freedom because it’s really very free, or because they never dared to test the limits, is something else that we should consider.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We don’t need permission from anyone to say anything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correction: that applies to different degrees to various places. Of course there are consequences for the stuff that we say. But would JBJ have been bankrupted and destroyed in the US? Please - he wouldn’t even stand out among other politicians. The fact that he WAS destroyed says a lot about the institutions and powers that be that facilitated his destruction - the same institutions whose tentacles are entrenched in all aspects of Singaporean society, including the universities. I won’t be explicit about it, but you should know. It’s a difference in extent, and I believe that’s the kind of difference that makes young, naive and idealistic people want to go overseas to study and learn.</p>
<p>from what I know about your achievements, fiona, I think both should be quite easy. but I’d give it to MIT cos it’s need-blind :D</p>
<p>fiona_, I think they are about equal. Apply to both and see where you end up lor.</p>
<p>Indeed screwitlah has explicated succinctly where our differences laid in:</p>
<p>He wants to “speak without an iota of responsibility and understanding” without sanction; whereas I emphasized that you have the freedom to say what you want, but should have the courage to accept responsibility and the consequences (sanctions) that’s comes with it. Hence my suggestion to understand before freedom of speech.</p>
<p>To each his own then…</p>
<p>Nowhere in the world do you have speech without responsibility? But how is this responsibility provided? My school’s philosophy is inherited from Jefferson’s – “tolerate any error so long as reason is free to combat it”. No American school will allow you to irresponsibly exercise your opinion (in your schoolwork no less) without consequence. But those consequences are provided in the SEARCH FOR TRUTH, in the SEARCH FOR REASON, and peers and faculty provide both – in effect, a free market of ideas, where the most competent idea wins. </p>
<p>But in Singapore, government mandate artificially interferes with the free market of ideas. The ruling party’s version of truth does not compete with anything, by fiat, it is truth. Truth: national education. Truth: the NS policy is unquestionably necessary. One is fed the appropriate truths to have a good career, and to be a good “citizen”. Despite all its awards, why does NUS’ citation rankings remain low? What innovation has it produced? Other thinkers around the world obviously do not value the mediocre findings at NUS – or why else should its research papers be some of the least cited when compared to other schools around the world?</p>
<p>You should not attack those who seek US schools for intellectual freedom, for they will go far. Nay, you should be attacking those who somehow esteem US schools because they were told by society they were the best, and they accept that without question.</p>
<p>galoisien:</p>
<p>I agree with your first paragraph, totally. Hence ‘reason is free to combat it’ is part of the sanction and consequence I was talking about.</p>
<p>However, I think you would need more qualification for your second paragraph to hold valid. Does the ruling party have a version of it holds ‘true’? Of course it does, so does any political party that has a political agenda. That’s why for decades, the Democrats and Republicans have been battling it out. Let’s take a look at some of the ‘truths’ you dispute. </p>
<p>‘National Education’: erm…as long as nationalism is still a powerful concept that differentiates what an American is vs. a Singaporean, then ‘national education’ will always be an integral part of any education system. Does the U.S. not teach the American Civil Wars? Does it not teach about its history? Does it not teach patriotism? I don’t see a problem with national education. </p>
<p>‘The NS policy is unquestionably necessary’: Though I do feel it is necessary, please feel free to write a response to the Straits Times, or to your constituency leaders, or chat amongst your friends and argue your case about why it’s absolutely unnecessary. I’m sure after that reason will be free to combat your response and the truth will be clearer.</p>
<p>Are we fed what the ruling party holds true? Yes we are, in the same way that millions of Americans are subtly taught the U.S. is the greatest country in the world. The same way that Bush has tag other countries as the axis of evil. The same way the U.S. continues to portray invasion as liberation. But again, no one in Singapore is stopping you from questioning the policies they hold true, just back it up with reasons and logic.</p>
<p>I fail to see the link between citation rankings, innovation and whether other thinkers around the world value findings at NUS as indicators of a free or restricted market of ideas. “Why else should its research papers be some of the least cited”? There are lots of reasons that affect rankings, many of them for propaganda motivations (Think differences between ranking of QS Times, US News, Shanghai-Jiaotong etc). Or it could be for language reasons (If we were to survey academic journals in China, the U.S. would rank very low indeed on citation rankings). Or it could simply be the monopoly the U.S. has on prominent academic journals. I don’t think this is any sort of indicator of free or restricted market of ideas.</p>
<p>“You should not attack those who seek US schools for intellectual freedom…Nay, you should be attacking those who somehow esteem US schools because they were told by society they were the best, and they accept that without question.”</p>
<p>And that’s exactly what I’m doing (though I would not use the word ‘attack’, thus far, I believe I have only suggested alternative thoughts and express my own opinions). Again, I do not disagree with those that seek intellectual freedom, I have only disagreed with those that ‘seek US schools for intellectual freedom’, purportedly because this expression presupposes intellectual freedom cannot be cultivated at home. I am not attacking, but questioning 'those who somehow esteem US schools because they were told by society they were the best (in providing academic, political, intellectual freedom etc. ?), and they accept that without question".</p>
<p>Again, I see this as an instance of esteeming US schools AT THE EXPENSE of denigrating the quality of undergrad education at NUS/NTU/SMU/other local universities.</p>