Article can be found here.
Students also weighed in with their opinions in the Sunday Times. Polys are cranking out more attractive courses and it is increasingly easier for diploma holders to go on and obtain a degree (not necessarily from a local university), I guess that partly explains why more students are opting for the poly route.
Are there any implications when many highly qualified students take to the polys rather than the JCs? For one, will it raise the quality of the poly education? Can we assume that by and large that these students will take the top positions in poly? Granted that poly education is a completely different kettle of fish from both secondary school and JC, let me indulge in this little thought experiment a while. If this is true, that is, people who excelled in O levels will generally perform well in polys, then what does it imply for the 'mountain range of excellence' that PM Lee was referring to?
Taken from a MOE speech:
Let me start with many peaks of excellence. It’s something we have been talking about for quite some time. But it’s something which we continue to work on. To develop each child, his unique interests, his unique talents. To help him to grow, and if he has something special, to enable him to express it, and to achieve that excellence, that fulfilment, that ability to become what he could be and make a contribution. Not all kids are the same. Not all kids can take the same approach. Some we can lecture, some we have to guide, some we have to encourage, others we work with them hands-on and inspire them by your presence. But whatever the kid’s interest, we must provide many paths for him to grow and to develop. We need to build up this whole mountain range of excellence so that individually we are strong, but as a team, we are invincible.
Well, for one, having more peaks of excellence does not mean more people will reach the top. It could be the case that the people occupying the top positions are the same ones who would have done so anyway. They are just doing it in a different area. So the picture is that instead of 50 mountain climbers gathered on the peak, we have 10 peaks with 5 climbers on each. The status quo remains, but they have more oxygen to themselves. In the spirit of widening the definition of success, I'm not sure if that is all that different. Because, besides recognising success in different fields, another factor to consider is social mobility. How easy or hard is it for people who aren't traditionally considered excellent to grow and develop in the field of their choice?
Obviously, the concept of the "mountain range of excellence" is more important to those who aren't already strong academically, because of the qualifying criteria of certain schools and courses. But if these students are being displaced by better qualified students from their preferred schools or courses, I'll think that it will be harder for them to be strong individually. I'm assuming that students who get into the first one or second course of their choice will have greater passion than those who don't and this is a critical factor. This doesn't always hold of course, but in general I think it is the case.
Of course, this is just looking at the issue from a very narrow angle. Being the meritocracy that we are, it is logical to accept that better students should have more choice. After all, they've earned it. And quotas on course enrollment is always bound by the iron laws of supply and demand.
