In the recent debate in Parliament, the education minister quoted a load of statistics to defend the notion that social mobility is still a very much central tenet in our meritocratic system. Here are some examples that he quoted to answer the question about how are the children in the bottom one-third of the socio-economic background faring:-
"One in two scores in the top two-thirds at PSLE”
“One in six scores in the top one-third at PSLE”
"One in five scores in the top 30% at O and A levels… One in five goes to university and polys”
Is this kind of statistics convincing or confusing the issue? I would like to pose the following questions:-
1) Pls give statistics on the children coming from the top 10% of the socio-economic strata?
2) Pls give breakdown of statistics by timeframe as the socio-eonomic background has accentuated acutely over the last five years
3) Pls give the number of children coming from the bottom 20% of the socio-economic strata getting into RI, RGS, HCI, NYGS and ACS(I)
4) Pls give the number of children coming from the top 20% of the socio-economic strata getting into RI, RGS, HCI, NYGS and ACS(I)
5) Pls give the number of children coming from the bottom 20% of the socio-economic strata getting into medicine and law in NUS
6) Pls give the number of children coming from the top 20% of the socio-economic strata getting into medicine and law in NUS
My gut feeling tell me that you may be surprised and be less assuring if these figures are available to you.
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Wednesday, 9 March 2011
Education - the social leveller?
I read a few days ago in the StraitTimes on the somewhat emotional debate in Parliament regarding whether children coming from the less privilege segment of our population are given adequate opportunity to excel, hence subsequently improve upon their social-economic conditions.
It seems a universally acknowledged truth that education is the key to economic success. Everyone seems to know that the jobs of the future will require ever higher levels of skill.
This is really the case? I feel it may turn out to be wrong!
The Times published an article about the growing use of software to perform legal research. Computers, it turns out, can quickly analyze millions of documents, cheaply performing a task that used to require armies of lawyers and paralegals. In this case, then, technological progress is actually reducing the demand for highly educated workers. And legal research isn’t an isolated example. As the article points out, software has also been replacing engineers in such tasks as chip design. More broadly, the idea that modern technology eliminates only menial jobs, that well-educated workers are clear winners, may dominate popular discussion, but it’s actually be out of date.
Computers excel in performing cognitive or manual tasks that require explicit rules. Hence any jobs, including numerous white-collar jobs premised on the ability to operate those rules are at risk. On the contrary, any jobs that cannot be performed by explicit rules like prison guards will remain relevant in face of such technological advances.
The pertinent question is - are we pushing our children to active pursue a higher education that ultimately is no more than ticket to a job that does not exist anymore! Or what sort of skills should our childrens acquire to prevent from being replace by the androids of the future? I am curious nobody ask the question in Parliament to our honourable education minister.
It seems a universally acknowledged truth that education is the key to economic success. Everyone seems to know that the jobs of the future will require ever higher levels of skill.
This is really the case? I feel it may turn out to be wrong!
The Times published an article about the growing use of software to perform legal research. Computers, it turns out, can quickly analyze millions of documents, cheaply performing a task that used to require armies of lawyers and paralegals. In this case, then, technological progress is actually reducing the demand for highly educated workers. And legal research isn’t an isolated example. As the article points out, software has also been replacing engineers in such tasks as chip design. More broadly, the idea that modern technology eliminates only menial jobs, that well-educated workers are clear winners, may dominate popular discussion, but it’s actually be out of date.
Computers excel in performing cognitive or manual tasks that require explicit rules. Hence any jobs, including numerous white-collar jobs premised on the ability to operate those rules are at risk. On the contrary, any jobs that cannot be performed by explicit rules like prison guards will remain relevant in face of such technological advances.
The pertinent question is - are we pushing our children to active pursue a higher education that ultimately is no more than ticket to a job that does not exist anymore! Or what sort of skills should our childrens acquire to prevent from being replace by the androids of the future? I am curious nobody ask the question in Parliament to our honourable education minister.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)