The criteria
for the rankings are academic and employer reputations, student to faculty
ratio, citations per faculty, international faculty ratio and international
student ratio and also research excellence. How would these criteria affect or
benefit the students? Academic and employer reputations, presumably the
graduates are highly sough after by employers. Is that so? We only know that
our junks did not have the right skill sets and are often rejected by employers
that preferred to hire from the 3rd World unranked universities.
Fake degrees and degree mills also better, or can do.
Student to
faculty ratio, presumably a smaller ratio would mean closer and personal
attention on the students and can be translated to better grades. Enrol Ah Meng
and check if better student to faculty ratio would make Ah Meng smarter.
Citations per faculty and research excellence would mean better academics and
thus benefit the students and their quality. Use the Ah Meng to confirm if this
is also true. International faculty ratio and international student ratio, both
imply that with more foreign faces, the universities are better. So just pump
in more 3rd world lecturers and students also can. How would these
improve the quality of the graduates, more international friends, can relate
and socialize with foreigners better, easier to integrate with them? EQ is
important, what about grades?
What the
rankings said is that we are world best. When we were not world best, we need
to borrow international names, pay them, bring the whole faculties here, to say
we have world best universities. Now we can do the reverse, the universities of
the world would want to have joint campuses with us, bring our whole faculties
to their countries and pay them good rupiahs, rupees and renminbis. Maybe can
get Japanese Yen also. There will be
many joint campuses in other countries with the NUS/NTU brand and our lecturers
would be in demand. We can send all our foreign lecturers to these countries
and hire more foreign lecturers to replace them. What about Singaporean
lecturers? What is that?
My
recommendation, there is no need to send our students to the universities. The
employers would still not hire them. Maybe in 30 years time. So a better
recommendation would be to send them to the unranked universities in the 3rd
World. That is where the employers find all their good employees. Not in our
world class top universities.
Why so
funny? Paying for such good reputation but no market value, no demand. If the
high rankings would lead to a situation where the employers are queuing up to
snatch all the graduates from our top universities then it would make sense. To
be real, to be able to get employed, it is better to go to universities in the
3rd World and sign up with employment agencies from the 3rd
World given a licence to operate here. They are the game changer. They will get
the applicants the right jobs, not the piece of paper from our top
universities. They still cannot produce the right graduates with the right
skill sets for the job market.
Maybe the
Quacquarelli Symonds System may want to add a new criteria, the universities
must produce graduates with the right skill sets for the job market. If their
graduates are not wanted by the employers, did not have the right skill sets,
give them a big F.
What do you
think? Are we wasting public money for the wrong things, for a superficial
branding without substance?
PS. Watch
MIT, Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, we are going to over take you. We will bring
in more foreign faculty staff and foreign students to improve our rankings
further. And watch out students, the fees will increase with the improvement in
quality, I mean rankings.
22 comments:
The advantage of going to US to study is you get to work and live there.
The disavantabe of coming to Singapore is that it will be doom day. Housing and car not affordable and prospect of children future doomed.
90% foreign lecturers and administrative staff. 90% foreign students.
Sure top of the world. Better 99% foreign staff and students. Like that sure cannot be beaten. No country will do that but we can.
Are we wasting public money for the wrong things, for a superficial branding without substance?
RB
Hahahahahaha.
Even if RB think so, so what?
PAP now even has a bigger mandate to waste public money for the wrong things, for a superficial branding without substance!
Hahahahahaha.
RB really don't get it...NUS administrators n lecturers are really top top..with the likes of former Chief Justice. n presidents son in law....NUS only for those who want to think out of the box..who can forget the landmark reasoning on how measurements should be made...and those who believe in the powers of inter personal relationship...as Singaporeans will always say..if it doesn't affect u personally...MOVE ON!!
Thanks jjgg. I almost forgot. It is relationship that matters, guanxi or is there another word in the English vocab?
Mr RB, close proximity of the wrong kind.
Stone to death in Middle East.
Cheers
RB@1115... Singapore word for guan I is PLP la...😀😀
Rb, best test is go ask top paying jobs at investment banks in sg how many local graduates they took for front office jobs! Very very few lar. Mostly foreigners or sg graduated from overseas not even necessary ivy leagues. Need I say more? All these ranking is useless lar
The academics are supposed to be intelligent people but so easily conned by such rankings. Can you believe that? And we pay them top dollars thinking they are very clever.
Cronyism, nepotism anyone?
So, we are now better than Yales and Cornell U. Let's see which uni the sons and daughters of the natural aristocrats go to.
Don't just hear what they say. See what they do.
Singapore political masters had done Singaporean graduates & students, who went through probably the most rigorous student years, a great disfavor by talking down on them and inevitably denying them of better employment opportunities in past 20 years, ever since they started the we need lots of FT campaign.
They should reflect and maybe even repent on this matter.
If you are harsh, in Chinese is called "Sold out the country thieves". How sad, if this is true.
I witnessed the dramatic change in higher level rewarding opportunities against locals, in past 20 years in the banking sector, when our government adopted that posture. And the so called FTs were so-so. If fact some were lazy and just good in politicking. FTs indeed had a very good run in little Red Dot.
In any case Singaporeans asked for it through the ballots.
....in the investment banking & treasury sector,...
Recently I met a top notch banker who was trying to recruit some employees to join his bank. He had interviewed a dozen or so potentials. Half the interviewees were Singaporeans and the other half were FTs, mostly from India. At the end of each interview he always allow each interviewee to ask questions about the position applied for, the bank they wish to join etc.
Most of the FTs potentials would ask questions about the work, the structure of the bank, dress codes etc. However, most if not all the Singaporeans interviewees would ask about leave entitlement, number of sick days allowed, if they are required to work weekends and the number of hours they are required to work each day.
Who do you think would get the job? I leave you to decide.
If ours were really that good or excellent.
then graduates graduated even just with merits
are better than those graduated outside 300 rankings,
and yet ...............
Singaporeans please read 7:28pm especially the undergraduates and students. You are paid to work not to go on holidays. Think of how hard your papa and grand papa and mama and grandmama worked to get us here.
When you work, work. Play is your private business. The attitude is very impt.
You are paid to work not to go on holidays.
RB 8:02 p.m.
Tiok. And luckily Singaporeans like those as described by 7.28 pm are a minority, maybe 30% or less now, down from about 40% in 2011. And this one PAP also knows.
Most of the FTs potentials would ask questions about the work, the structure of the bank, dress codes etc.
Anon 7:28 p.m.
And that's precisely why PAP love to make these FTs into new Sinkie citizens.
And with more of such new citizens, not only will they vote PAP during elections, they will also make Singapore's future very bright and sustaining too.
Because there will never be a shortage of such FTs available from the whole, wide world at all times and also willing to be new Sinkie citizens too, tio bo? Whole, wide world, u know.
7:28
Which planet are you from?
I have interviewed and trained many Singaporean bankers & investment managers over many years. None of the Singaporeans has ask me about leave, entitlements, etc.
Most have good attitude. Singaporeans are hardworking and meticulous.
The only weak point I find in them is that they are "gutless", which makes it difficult for them to go to the top, as they need to overcome the hurdle of fear to take risk and manage risk.
This I am convinced is due to years of seeing how the government punished/disadvantaged those who don't toll the line. Singapore education is great, but the social environment promoted by the government is one of "fear". In simple term kaisi, kaisu and kai cheng hu.
Without risk taking appetite, it is difficult to go to the top.
Apart from social conditioning, many Singaporeans got a stone mill hanging on their necks. The big house mortgage must be service, the car instalments to be paid, the children's expenses need to be paid as well. They cannot afford to lose their jobs, and cannot afford to afford their superiors to risk the stable income.
Many foreigners were brought up in a culture of survival of the fittest, cheat, bribe, sabo, curry favour, kill if needed, do anything, the gains are huge, the loss is nothing, nothing much to lose.
...many Singaporeans got a stone mill hanging on their necks.
RB
Tiok. And with that, naturally they will be unhappy with PAP.
But it seems not many are unhappy enough to the extent of voting opposition.
And with that PAP can afford to continue with its policies that result in many Singaporeans got a stone mill hanging on their necks.
And I, like Kenneth (son of JB), also do not wish to hear their complaints.
Chin Leng,
Singaporeans who want to make bigger progress, have to on their own accord unshackled the stone mill hanging on their necks through living well within their means materially. In this way, the financial burden will be lightened and practically this will afford them to save and take more risks when opportunities arise both at work and in the markets.
I know of individuals, who are not connected to the government, through honest diligence and risk taking despite setbacks become multi-millionaires. They live well-within their means and are persistent in taking risks when opportunities arise in work and markets. They prepare the ammunition for risks, even from small base and did not consume their capital.
Post a Comment