~by: Leong Sze Hian~

I refer to the article “Foreign scholars closely tracked” (ST, Feb 18).

Sometimes, replies in Parliament may give you the edgy feeling that the statistics cited may not be telling you the whole story.

One such instance I think, was the recent reply on foreign scholars.

“At least” means how many?

What does at least 2,000 foreign scholars in a year mean?

Well, it may mean that in some years, it may have been much more than 2,000.

So, what you need to know is the number in each of the last five years.

$36 million for just 1 year?

I believe the $36 million funding is only for a year.  As a typical degree program is about four years, does it mean that in a year, we may be funding four cohorts of foreign scholars.

So, does it mean that the funding in a year, may be about $144 million ($36 million times four years)?

What about post-graduate students?

Since the reply does not mention post-graduate students, and as I understand that about 20 and 70 per cent of undergraduate and post-graduate students are foreigners, respectively, how much is the funding for post-graduate foreign scholars?

If we include the above, could the grand total be more than $160 million?  In contrast, how much funding do we give to Singaporeans scholars?

Comparing foreign scholars to ordinary S’poreans?

As to around 45 per cent of foreign scholars complete their undergraduate studies with a second-upper class honours or better while only 32% of Singaporeans do as well, this may not be an apple-to-apple comparison, as we are comparing foreign scholars to ordinary Singaporeans.

What percentage of Singaporean scholars get second-upper class honours or better?

How many bond breakers?

How many foreign scholars broke their bonds?

How much could not be recovered from these bond breakers?

How many fee paying foreigners?

What is the percentage of foreign students who pay full fees versus foreign students on scholarships?

Education system – bad example?

It may be somewhat ironic that the subject reply was from the Ministry of Education (MOE).  If this is the kind of learning that gives such vague answers when students ask questions, then I think we may have a problem in our educational system.

I hope that students who read this article may find it educational.

What’s missing may be more telling?

What this example may illustrate, is that sometimes, the “missing” statistics may give a hint as to how interesting the whole story may really be!


Support TOC! Buy Uncle Leong’s book here!

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

抄袭王瑞杰? 马国旅游局:我们也有东海岸计划!

还记得提名日(6月30日)当天,临危上阵东海岸集选区的原副总理王瑞杰,似乎还未准备好与选区有关的致辞稿,结果演说只能不断重复“东海岸”,成为选举期间的热门笑料之一。 当时在成功提名后,王瑞杰发表感言,指出:“对于东海岸的居民,我们都有针对东海岸的计划。我们有…东海岸…新加坡…我们都有东海岸的计划。我们关心东海岸。” 不过,不知是否纯属巧合还是存心恶搞,长提对岸的马来西亚旅游局,竟也“抄袭”王瑞杰,在旅游宣传广告中标榜“我们也有东海岸计划”! 在马国旅游局的脸书贴文,也写道:“我们也有东海岸的计划,我们有东海岸-马来西亚。我们都共同有,东海岸计划,我们关心您,马国驻新加坡旅游局”。接着不忘介绍该国东海岸的知名景点,如热浪岛、刁曼岛等等。 不过不仅仅是马来西亚,就连泰国旅游局也要来恶搞!泰国旅游局也借机推广泰国东海岸的景点,例如芭达雅、春武里府、庄他武里等。 不得不重温下王瑞杰的经典演说:

Beihai Asia International Arbitration Centre opens in Singapore, to be helmed by Prof Steve Ngo

The Beihai Asia International Arbitration centre (BAIAC) opens in Singapore today (8…

Mixed reactions from netizens over enforcement officer’s action of kicking errant rider off his PMD to stop him

On Tuesday (10 December) a video captured by a vehicle’s dashcam saw…

Hypocritical for govt to say it respects wishes of the people when it comes to gay sex but not on other national matters

The Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) led government in Singapore is not known…