Before, how do universities identify students who are the cream of the crop? Answer: They look at the student's grades.
Now, how do universities identify students who are the cream of the crop? Answer: They look at student's achievements outside his studies.
With more and more people achieving As for their A Levels, it is more difficult for universities to select the best out of the best, as the place is limited. Now with JC diplomas given out to students who are exceptionally good in certain areas, it allows universities to have a better view of which of the students are the ones that they need.
However, even with the JC diploma, I do not feel that it can completely replace A Levels altogether. This is because the purpose of A Level is to test whether a student is prepared for the examinations and whether the student can graduate from JC.
To start off, it is a fact that one has to have good grades in order to get into top universities. Universities want all the top students studying in their institutions so as to boost their reputations and also to attract all the best talents to their universities. The A levels hence is a verification of one’s concepts that one has learned in school.
On the other hand, the JC diploma is a guage to verify the student's achivement other than his studies for example research and electives. However this cannot replace A Levels as the JC diploma is used more for scholarships and universities when everyone is as good as the other. Only during such situation can JC diploma be used to separate the cream of the crop from the rest.
Hence, I feel that JC diploma cannot replace A Levels and can only be used to compare other achievements with equally good students.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Today's library, tomorrow's 'googlary'?
With the technology of the internet improving day by day, we can now even check about information on online libraries and even read articles online. Many people thus wonder whether this would be the end of libraries and the beginning of the online reading age. My thoughts and feelings, never.
Closing down libraries just because online reading can replace it is nearly the same as closing down museums because you can see the pictures of the artifacts online. Reading is never solely about staring at the words and let it go into the brains. Reading also requires the atmosphere and environment. For example, no point reading a romance story is someone is blasting "womanizer" beside you. It simply spoils the mood. Thats one of the reasons why a library exists: in order to provide with the reader a comfortable environment for him or her to read.
As for why not using the internet as a source of reading. There are a few simple points as in why. Firstly, internet is completely distracting. When you are reading a real book, its only the world, the book and yourself. You can spend hours enjoying that book and without anything around you that can possibly distract you, assuming that you are in a suitable environment. As for internet, there is the world, the book, youtube, wikipedia, myspace, facebook, hotmail, msn, google.....and maybe you. The number of distractions is too great for a person to read a book online and in peace, any moment the reader may just go to wikipedia and attempt to get a summary out of the story so that it spoils the entire mood, or google some sites which will tell you all the spoilers you want about the story.
The second and most obvious reason, it hurts your eyes. You can read a book for hours and only feel a slight tiring of the eyes, but more than 30minutes on the computer reading words would affect your eyes greatly. There are research which found out that reading a lot of words on the computer, and especially continuously scrolling up and down, affects the eyes way more than reading a real book for hours. And by the time you come back from resting your eyes to the computer, you may have already lost interest and decide to go for spoilers instead.
A third reason is that many people feel that comparing reading a real book and reading an online book. The mood created and the "hook" towards the book is greater when reading a real book compared to an online one. Thus many people who read books online may not have been fully enjoying themselves compared to reading a real one.
Hence, libraries getting closed down? Dream on. At least in my era that will not happen.
Closing down libraries just because online reading can replace it is nearly the same as closing down museums because you can see the pictures of the artifacts online. Reading is never solely about staring at the words and let it go into the brains. Reading also requires the atmosphere and environment. For example, no point reading a romance story is someone is blasting "womanizer" beside you. It simply spoils the mood. Thats one of the reasons why a library exists: in order to provide with the reader a comfortable environment for him or her to read.
As for why not using the internet as a source of reading. There are a few simple points as in why. Firstly, internet is completely distracting. When you are reading a real book, its only the world, the book and yourself. You can spend hours enjoying that book and without anything around you that can possibly distract you, assuming that you are in a suitable environment. As for internet, there is the world, the book, youtube, wikipedia, myspace, facebook, hotmail, msn, google.....and maybe you. The number of distractions is too great for a person to read a book online and in peace, any moment the reader may just go to wikipedia and attempt to get a summary out of the story so that it spoils the entire mood, or google some sites which will tell you all the spoilers you want about the story.
The second and most obvious reason, it hurts your eyes. You can read a book for hours and only feel a slight tiring of the eyes, but more than 30minutes on the computer reading words would affect your eyes greatly. There are research which found out that reading a lot of words on the computer, and especially continuously scrolling up and down, affects the eyes way more than reading a real book for hours. And by the time you come back from resting your eyes to the computer, you may have already lost interest and decide to go for spoilers instead.
A third reason is that many people feel that comparing reading a real book and reading an online book. The mood created and the "hook" towards the book is greater when reading a real book compared to an online one. Thus many people who read books online may not have been fully enjoying themselves compared to reading a real one.
Hence, libraries getting closed down? Dream on. At least in my era that will not happen.
Leader: GEP
Basically the moral of the story is: woots to elites, sucks to elitism.
Who are the elites? The elites are the leaders of Singapore's future society, who are vital for the progress of the country. When we talk about elites, we mean leaders who truly leads the country, who is able to command the people to work as one, who is willing to serve the people of Singapore. This are the type of true leaders, unlike some "leaders" whose job is simply to order his workers around and his secretary would do the job.
When people look at students of GEP in Singapore, they tend to view the students as the very hardworking, knowledgeable, and often the muuger type. True, to a certain extent. Some students are naturally talented in a certain area of studies, thus they do not require to spend as much time on that subject as other students need to. Also, students may not necessarily be the "mug" type, they may develop special methods to help in their studies and to make learning less stressful. Nowadays, purely mugging is never the correct method in facing studies. Through purely mugging you MAY be able to have good results for tests which are tested only in that area. But what about outside the classroom? Students who are pure muggers could only gaze blankly because they only remember what the textbook says, and are not knowledgeable about other topics outside the textbook.
Take for example in my class, it is mainly divided into 4 groups. The muggers, the talented muggers, the talented slackers, the slackers. It is very easily understood. Students who study subjects a lot and sometimes requires hard memorising before he can understand a topic, like me towards mathematics. Students to are talented and also spend a lot of time studying subject. Students who are talented but does not study subjects to THAT extent. And students who spend their time relaxing. For me, I feel that the last group would not be very efficient if they do not at least start by revising their homework. The first type would only lose to the rest of those who studied felxibly when he competed with them for scholarships and competitions. Some students may think that following one's own hobbies instead of preparing themselves for tests by endless studying is wrong. What I can say is that such nursery chain of thoughts would only bring harm to the person. In this society nowadays, everyone is good in tests, and can be good in tests. When students compete for scholarships, nobody would bother to look at their test results anymore - they have good results anyway. What does people look at? Their talents, their hobbies. What differs one student from another is exactly the hobbies and interests that student has. For example, a student who is interested and good in science would of course have a better chance when competing with another student who is only interest in getting good results for his tests and is good in tests.
Secondly, I would like to bring up the issue of "relaxing", as some students may say when they saw their classmates taking time out of their stressful studies to take a break. Relaxing is the best way to make a student learn better as it gives the brain time to cool down. Endless mugging would only affect the student more if he does not know how to relax properly.
Hence, I feel that Singapore should have elites, but elites who are really elites, not muggers.
Who are the elites? The elites are the leaders of Singapore's future society, who are vital for the progress of the country. When we talk about elites, we mean leaders who truly leads the country, who is able to command the people to work as one, who is willing to serve the people of Singapore. This are the type of true leaders, unlike some "leaders" whose job is simply to order his workers around and his secretary would do the job.
When people look at students of GEP in Singapore, they tend to view the students as the very hardworking, knowledgeable, and often the muuger type. True, to a certain extent. Some students are naturally talented in a certain area of studies, thus they do not require to spend as much time on that subject as other students need to. Also, students may not necessarily be the "mug" type, they may develop special methods to help in their studies and to make learning less stressful. Nowadays, purely mugging is never the correct method in facing studies. Through purely mugging you MAY be able to have good results for tests which are tested only in that area. But what about outside the classroom? Students who are pure muggers could only gaze blankly because they only remember what the textbook says, and are not knowledgeable about other topics outside the textbook.
Take for example in my class, it is mainly divided into 4 groups. The muggers, the talented muggers, the talented slackers, the slackers. It is very easily understood. Students who study subjects a lot and sometimes requires hard memorising before he can understand a topic, like me towards mathematics. Students to are talented and also spend a lot of time studying subject. Students who are talented but does not study subjects to THAT extent. And students who spend their time relaxing. For me, I feel that the last group would not be very efficient if they do not at least start by revising their homework. The first type would only lose to the rest of those who studied felxibly when he competed with them for scholarships and competitions. Some students may think that following one's own hobbies instead of preparing themselves for tests by endless studying is wrong. What I can say is that such nursery chain of thoughts would only bring harm to the person. In this society nowadays, everyone is good in tests, and can be good in tests. When students compete for scholarships, nobody would bother to look at their test results anymore - they have good results anyway. What does people look at? Their talents, their hobbies. What differs one student from another is exactly the hobbies and interests that student has. For example, a student who is interested and good in science would of course have a better chance when competing with another student who is only interest in getting good results for his tests and is good in tests.
Secondly, I would like to bring up the issue of "relaxing", as some students may say when they saw their classmates taking time out of their stressful studies to take a break. Relaxing is the best way to make a student learn better as it gives the brain time to cool down. Endless mugging would only affect the student more if he does not know how to relax properly.
Hence, I feel that Singapore should have elites, but elites who are really elites, not muggers.
The Great Casino Debate
After reading the article, I feel that I would like to disagree with the author about Singapore not setting up a casino. Indeed, what the author fears is also what the majority of the Singaporeans are worrying about, about people getting addicted to gambling, about families broken up because of gambling, about people neglecting their work for gambling, so on and so forth. But in the end it still brings us to one problem, the issue of self-control.
Firstly, the author compares the setting up of a casino as killing the "goose" for the "golden eggs", however, I feel that the casino is never a "once-gain" issue. Once the management work of the casino is stable, continuous amount of cash will flow into Sinagapore. It does bring continuous help to Singapore's economy, the only problem is whether or not Sinagporeans would be tempted to go to the casino for the quick cash which would usually result in loss of money. This brings us to the issue of self-control. If the Singaporeans have self-control in them, they would know when is the time for them to stop gambling and go back to their daily lives. Only those who are unable to control themselves will be hooked on to the casino and continue destroying their lives - and this is why the government made sure that only those people who have the amount of money could go into the casino. Why? Because the government feels that these people had plenty of money just due to the fact that they can control themselves and thus did not spend all of them the moment they got their hands on the money.
Also, I feel that casino by itself is not a bane to Singapore society. Take for example Las Vegas, why would people want to go there? It is exactly because Las Vegas is the "heart" of casinos and thus people are willing to spend the money to go there, it is exactly the casinos that attracts the people. If there is a casino in Singapore, at least more people in the Asia region would visit Singapore's casino, this would greatly help Singapore's economy. Also, the setting up of the casino also provides job for many more people - nobody can deny this fact. Furthermore, it gives Singapore more experience in casinos as it is the first time that Singapore set up a casino.
Hence, I feel that the setting up of a casino in Singapore is not as much as a bane to its society as other people would think.
Firstly, the author compares the setting up of a casino as killing the "goose" for the "golden eggs", however, I feel that the casino is never a "once-gain" issue. Once the management work of the casino is stable, continuous amount of cash will flow into Sinagapore. It does bring continuous help to Singapore's economy, the only problem is whether or not Sinagporeans would be tempted to go to the casino for the quick cash which would usually result in loss of money. This brings us to the issue of self-control. If the Singaporeans have self-control in them, they would know when is the time for them to stop gambling and go back to their daily lives. Only those who are unable to control themselves will be hooked on to the casino and continue destroying their lives - and this is why the government made sure that only those people who have the amount of money could go into the casino. Why? Because the government feels that these people had plenty of money just due to the fact that they can control themselves and thus did not spend all of them the moment they got their hands on the money.
Also, I feel that casino by itself is not a bane to Singapore society. Take for example Las Vegas, why would people want to go there? It is exactly because Las Vegas is the "heart" of casinos and thus people are willing to spend the money to go there, it is exactly the casinos that attracts the people. If there is a casino in Singapore, at least more people in the Asia region would visit Singapore's casino, this would greatly help Singapore's economy. Also, the setting up of the casino also provides job for many more people - nobody can deny this fact. Furthermore, it gives Singapore more experience in casinos as it is the first time that Singapore set up a casino.
Hence, I feel that the setting up of a casino in Singapore is not as much as a bane to its society as other people would think.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
How far would you consider the measures taken by various countries to contain the spread of swine flu adequate and effective?
Now we are all very concerned about our health ever since the outbreak of the swine flu or H1N1 virus. It is a virus which first took its place in Mexico and caused chaos all over the world and countries immediately took safety measures against it.
In Asia, where many countries had past experience of battling with the H5N1 bird flu and SARS, began taking steps in ensuring that H1N1 virus will not penetrate the countries as easily as previous cases of other viruses. Some countries began quarantining foreign visitors suspected of having or being in contact with others who may have been infected. In late May, the Chinese government confined 21 U.S. students and three teachers to their hotel rooms because a passenger on their plane to China, suspected of having swine flu, had been seated within four rows of the students. In Hong Kong, an entire hotel was quarantined with 240 guests after one person staying there was found to have swine flu. Countries have used many methods such as quarantines, closing down of schools, closely monitor those people who are having high fevers or had been to countries that were affected by flu for the past few days.
However, one down side about all these preventions is that no matter how preventive the measures, there are still many people who got infected after they flew from one country to another country without being noticed. I feel that the best method to solve this problem is that people themselves should observe good personal hygiene and take up preventive measures should they observe other people around them is suspicious of having the flu. Also, if the people should see a doctor should they feel unwell during this period, so as to ensure that they themselves will not be a carrier of the deadly flu.
Also, there are some desperate measures such as containment which will serverely affect other countries' tourism and economic development in general. I feel that the method of containment will not work as no matter how the government tries to prevent people from going to other countries, its still up to the people themselves to take care of their health. Thus, I feel that the best way to defeat the swine flu is that all the people knows how to take care of themselves properly.
In Asia, where many countries had past experience of battling with the H5N1 bird flu and SARS, began taking steps in ensuring that H1N1 virus will not penetrate the countries as easily as previous cases of other viruses. Some countries began quarantining foreign visitors suspected of having or being in contact with others who may have been infected. In late May, the Chinese government confined 21 U.S. students and three teachers to their hotel rooms because a passenger on their plane to China, suspected of having swine flu, had been seated within four rows of the students. In Hong Kong, an entire hotel was quarantined with 240 guests after one person staying there was found to have swine flu. Countries have used many methods such as quarantines, closing down of schools, closely monitor those people who are having high fevers or had been to countries that were affected by flu for the past few days.
However, one down side about all these preventions is that no matter how preventive the measures, there are still many people who got infected after they flew from one country to another country without being noticed. I feel that the best method to solve this problem is that people themselves should observe good personal hygiene and take up preventive measures should they observe other people around them is suspicious of having the flu. Also, if the people should see a doctor should they feel unwell during this period, so as to ensure that they themselves will not be a carrier of the deadly flu.
Also, there are some desperate measures such as containment which will serverely affect other countries' tourism and economic development in general. I feel that the method of containment will not work as no matter how the government tries to prevent people from going to other countries, its still up to the people themselves to take care of their health. Thus, I feel that the best way to defeat the swine flu is that all the people knows how to take care of themselves properly.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Advance Medical Directive Act
Advance health care directives, also known as advance directives or advance decisions, are instructions given by individuals specifying what actions should be taken for their health in the event that they are no longer able to make decisions due to illness or incapacity. This means that for example the person signs an agreement, sometimes in the form of a will, saying that if one day he had an accident had went into a coma, his doctor would do what is stated on the agreement, either give him treatment or give him euthanasia. The plus side about AMD is that it is an agreement entirely of the person's free will, so he decides on what will be done to him should he face an event that disables his ability to make decisions.
The main difference between AMD and euthanasia is that AMD stops the prolonging of a human's life, but does not necessarily mean that it will end the person's life, while euthanasia is the process in which the person's life is ended.
The main good point abou AMD is that many seriously ill persons are not competent to make decisions about their care. For this reason many states have passed laws that encourage advance health care directives. By means of such a document, you are able to determine now about the kind of treatment you wish to receive should you become incompetent to make those determinations at the time of your illness.
However, the negative side of AMD is that firstly, the terminally ill person may still want to live on although he wrote he would be put to sleep in a will that's, say, 2 years ago. One possible negative side about AMD is that even when the person changes his mind, he may be unable to tell the doctor about it and what will happen to him next may not be what he really wants. Also, there are many drama series which simply loves to show scenes of people being forced or blackmailed into signing the AMD so that the blackmailer or the person's children can claim the money in the will. Although it sounds ridiculous, it is still possible that in thrid world countries people will be forced to sign the AMD so that certain gains can be claimed by another person. Although it is a criminal offense, people could settle it under the table without anyone else's awareness and this could avoid the law easily.
Hence, I feel that the issue of AMD should be considered seriously as it is really a matter of life and death.
The main difference between AMD and euthanasia is that AMD stops the prolonging of a human's life, but does not necessarily mean that it will end the person's life, while euthanasia is the process in which the person's life is ended.
The main good point abou AMD is that many seriously ill persons are not competent to make decisions about their care. For this reason many states have passed laws that encourage advance health care directives. By means of such a document, you are able to determine now about the kind of treatment you wish to receive should you become incompetent to make those determinations at the time of your illness.
However, the negative side of AMD is that firstly, the terminally ill person may still want to live on although he wrote he would be put to sleep in a will that's, say, 2 years ago. One possible negative side about AMD is that even when the person changes his mind, he may be unable to tell the doctor about it and what will happen to him next may not be what he really wants. Also, there are many drama series which simply loves to show scenes of people being forced or blackmailed into signing the AMD so that the blackmailer or the person's children can claim the money in the will. Although it sounds ridiculous, it is still possible that in thrid world countries people will be forced to sign the AMD so that certain gains can be claimed by another person. Although it is a criminal offense, people could settle it under the table without anyone else's awareness and this could avoid the law easily.
Hence, I feel that the issue of AMD should be considered seriously as it is really a matter of life and death.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Human Organ Transplant Act
Human Organ Transplant Act. From the surface of it I would say that legalizing human organ transplant (HOT) would be a great help to many people's lives, especially those who are in desperate need for their organ to be transplanted, eg. liver, kidney.
Imagine that you are terminally ill due to...for example liver failure. You are in desperate need to have a liver tranplant. But so does other patients (who are not at all patient) who shares the same ward with you. To find the right person (since not anyone's kidney can be transplanted to you), you have to wait from a few months to even a few years. And during the period of waiting you will be either suffering, or too weak for the transplant, or give up hope, or dead. The best way, obviously, is to buy a liver from a willing person. But since life is so unfair, it is illegal. So what should you do?
This is what many patients face when they are waiting for a donar to donate their organs to them. This is also the reason why HOTA is debated so much, because people feel that since by legalising it it will bring so much joy to these people, why not? As said before, from the surface of it it looks as though it is very "nice, good, cute and sweet", but this is based on everyone does not have any "tricks up his sleeves" and all the people in the world is not greedy.
Firstly, if HOT is legalised, there WIll be incidents where the poor will be exploited by the rich, who simply uses a small portion of their salary to buy organs from the poor, who even needs that small portion of salary. Also, there will be a rise in black market trades where human organs will be sold at high prices as though they are pieces of meat sold at a butcher's shop. You might be surprised at how willingly poor people of third-world countries will sell their organs for money, due to the fact that they are so poor that selling organ is the last possible way to maintaining a living.
Also, there will be people who are deeply influenced by Mammon and decides that they shall make use of ignorant or desperate third-world poor people as their "harvest" and reap a gigantic profit from the rich people who need the human organs. This can result in a chain of events where poor people may just be kidnapped on the streets and forcefully have their organs removed (and die in the process) so that these Mammons can reap their reward. This can be very scary where people just literally disappear on the streets and people did not even realise that they were gone. There are already live examples of such events in the US, where there is this doctor who takes away people's organs after they were dead, so that he could sell them to the black market.
I feel that if HOT is legalised, there must be strict rules for such trades. Firstly, the willing traders must sign a contract that claims that they ackowledge that they are having an organ trade. Also, the person who is giving away his organ must be fully aware that he is doing so and that he is comepletely willing to do so. Anyone who were caught attempting to harvest on the organs will immediately face the loop and rope, without any excuse, because kidnapping people and forcefully taking away their organs is morally wrong and there is no reason why anyone would do it. Furthermore, the organ transplant operations have to be conducted in a legal hospital and has to be documented by the hospital.
In conclusion, I feel that is is best not to legalise HOT, as even with precautions and laws involved, there will still be people who will abide the law just for the sake of cashing in more money.
Imagine that you are terminally ill due to...for example liver failure. You are in desperate need to have a liver tranplant. But so does other patients (who are not at all patient) who shares the same ward with you. To find the right person (since not anyone's kidney can be transplanted to you), you have to wait from a few months to even a few years. And during the period of waiting you will be either suffering, or too weak for the transplant, or give up hope, or dead. The best way, obviously, is to buy a liver from a willing person. But since life is so unfair, it is illegal. So what should you do?
This is what many patients face when they are waiting for a donar to donate their organs to them. This is also the reason why HOTA is debated so much, because people feel that since by legalising it it will bring so much joy to these people, why not? As said before, from the surface of it it looks as though it is very "nice, good, cute and sweet", but this is based on everyone does not have any "tricks up his sleeves" and all the people in the world is not greedy.
Firstly, if HOT is legalised, there WIll be incidents where the poor will be exploited by the rich, who simply uses a small portion of their salary to buy organs from the poor, who even needs that small portion of salary. Also, there will be a rise in black market trades where human organs will be sold at high prices as though they are pieces of meat sold at a butcher's shop. You might be surprised at how willingly poor people of third-world countries will sell their organs for money, due to the fact that they are so poor that selling organ is the last possible way to maintaining a living.
Also, there will be people who are deeply influenced by Mammon and decides that they shall make use of ignorant or desperate third-world poor people as their "harvest" and reap a gigantic profit from the rich people who need the human organs. This can result in a chain of events where poor people may just be kidnapped on the streets and forcefully have their organs removed (and die in the process) so that these Mammons can reap their reward. This can be very scary where people just literally disappear on the streets and people did not even realise that they were gone. There are already live examples of such events in the US, where there is this doctor who takes away people's organs after they were dead, so that he could sell them to the black market.
I feel that if HOT is legalised, there must be strict rules for such trades. Firstly, the willing traders must sign a contract that claims that they ackowledge that they are having an organ trade. Also, the person who is giving away his organ must be fully aware that he is doing so and that he is comepletely willing to do so. Anyone who were caught attempting to harvest on the organs will immediately face the loop and rope, without any excuse, because kidnapping people and forcefully taking away their organs is morally wrong and there is no reason why anyone would do it. Furthermore, the organ transplant operations have to be conducted in a legal hospital and has to be documented by the hospital.
In conclusion, I feel that is is best not to legalise HOT, as even with precautions and laws involved, there will still be people who will abide the law just for the sake of cashing in more money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
