Singaporeans Sacrificed for Top Universities Rankings

By MIKOspace

Were Singaporean Students and Professors Sacrificed for NTU Top Rankings? Singaporeans are Collateral Damage for Top Universities Rankings.  Was it Worth it?

“NTU heads QS' list of top 50 universities …”, according to London-based Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), one of three international universities ranking systems.

For the sake of meeting the Criteria of a Bogus Ranking Standard of Dubious Excellence, it appears that NOTHING was spared so as to Obtain a Brand of Questionable Authenticity.

Let’s examine 3 of the QS’ 5 Criteria here.

International Students Ratio (5%)

In 2013, 28% of NTU’s 23,484 undergraduates or 6,575 were foreigners. Why 28% foreign students? Canadian universities, for example, averaged only 8.9% foreign students in 2009. 

Some NTU “rejects” even went on to Ivy League Universities overseas. Many understandably could not afford the costly overseas education. A mere tweaking of the arbitrary cut-off points for NTU Admissions would easily have absorbed 6,500 more Singapore students. The cutoff point appeared deliberate in order to have less local students, in favour of foreign studnets in order for NTU to excel in the foreign students criteria of the QS Ranking criteria.

Were more than 6,500 Singaporean students, or between 1,700-1,900 annually, denied NTU admission into various 3-year and 4-year Undergraduate Programs, over 2009-2013, so that NTU could excel in the International Students Ratio criteria of the QS Ranking?

Totally Unacceptable is also the Fact that at least 40% of the “rejected” students would have completed National Service in their citizenship duty to serve and defend this Country, and only to find upon NS completion that a Public Institution in our Beloved Country had “sold them out” for a Foreign bogus ranking standard of dubious excellence!

What is Baffling is the fact that millions of Singapore funds are used to pay for the thousands of “free” scholarships for most foreign students to study in NTU and other local Universities. 

WHY THEN IS THE NEED FOR A BOGUS RANKING AUTHENTICATION to attract Foreign Students to study “free” here?

International Staff Ratio (5%)

Singaporean Professors in NTU were similarly discriminated for a better QS Ranking.  In a purge of Professors under the pretext of Tenure Evaluation from 2007-2010, mostly Singaporean Professors, including many already qualified for Tenure previously, were dismissed.  And when the dusts settled in 2010 after the Purge, Singapore citizens including new citizens formed only 44% of the faculty; 56% of NTU faculty are foreigners from 56 countries worldwide including Singapore PRs.

Professors who are Singaporeans were clearly discriminated and sacrificed so that NTU could excel in the International Staff Ratio criteria of the QS Ranking.

Faculty/Student Ratio (20%)

Following the Purge of Singaporean Professors, many more foreigners were engaged as NTU Professors. These are mostly freshly-graduated PhDs, and others lacking the acclaims, experience and research citations of those Singaporean Professors who were “terminated” by NTU. Their increased numbers were however necessary in order to meet the QS’ Faculty/Student Ratio.

While the first 3 Criteria may account for just 30% of the QS Criteria, the sacrifice of Singaporeans as students and Professors appeared necessary as the tipping points for NTU to excel and top the bogus standard of dubious excellence.

United Nation Education agency UNESCO had also challenged the validity and reliability of University Rankings like QS, viewing them “of dubious value” that “use shallow proxies as correlates of quality.” Really Sad, ALL THE SACRIFICES BY SINGAPOREANS ACTUALLY FOR NOTHING AUTHENTIC OR OF SUBSTANCE, REALLY. 

For the Sake of Authenticity and Integrity, Singapore universities should no longer participate in any “Global Universities Ranking” scams.  Singapore’s presence in the Global Universities Rankings invariable lends our hard-earned Reputation for Authenticity and Honesty to mask their lack of credibility, validity and reliability.  We owe it to our Founding Generations never to cheapen our Reputation, painstakingly built over the past 50 years, in any manner.  

Kopi Level - Green 

Read Full Article here:

Were Singaporean Students and Professors Sacrificed for Top NTU Rankings?

Changing Singapore’s DNA 换汤换药

The true blue Singaporeans built this place from Independence to a prosperous first world country. Now they are deemed as redundant, obsolete, lazy and don’t have the skills to fit in. So they are now systematically being replaced by hungry 3rd world talents and rogues from the West.
 
The question, what would Singapore be like in the future if the true blue Singaporeans become insignificant? Would Singapore still be a safe, rich and attractive place for the foreigners to come here to live and work?
 
Would the island still be a good and safe place to bring up children, low drug problems, women and children can go home safely in the early hours of the night without being raped, mugged and robbed?
 
Would the streets be clean and safe? Would the housing estate be rundown and turned into slums? Would there be law and order, rule of the law? Or would the streets be full of litters and shit? Would there be rioting, fighting and rapes every day?
 
Would the businesses and industries continue to thrive and to have the same vitality and productivity?
 
Would the foreigners turn this island into a better place or into hell? Would Singapore return to the 3rd World like where the foreigners came from?

Kopi Level - Green

WHO Ranked NTU?

By MIKOspace

The DARK SIDES of QS World Universities Ranker

Singapore Universities have recently been ranked at the Top by what most Academics and the United Nations Education agency, UNESCO, generally considered to be Bogus Ranking Standards of Dubious Excellence. 

Singapore University NTU has secured top placing as the world's best young university, according to Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World Universities Ranking, one of three major international university ranking systems.  The London-based QS World Universities Ranking has been called “a Fraud on the public.” Another Eminent Professor said: “QS simply doesn’t do as good a job as the other rankers that are using multiple indicators”. 

Eminent Professor Simon Marginson of then Melbourne University remarked of QS that: “I do think social science-wise it’s so weak that you can’t take the results seriously”. 

A Reporter also claimed that QS has used the threat of legal action to try to silence critics. “QS has twice threatened publications with legal action when publishing my bona fide criticisms of QS. One was The Australian: in that case QS prevented my criticisms from being aired. The other case was University World News, which refused to pull my remarks from its website when threatened by QS with legal action”.

The QS World Universities Ranking, like other Universities Rankings, is in essence deficient in terms of social science, but QS has been criticized for more than just its unsound, questionable and unscientific Methodology:

1)     THES DID drop QS for Methodological Reasons. QS’ use of peer and industry surveys is highly questionable with very low response rate returns from huge number of unspecified respondents of unknown expertise.  Read the best explanation by QS’s former partner …  

2)     The Most Stinging Criticism is the Sale of Dubious QS-Star Ratings. One wonders which self-respecting University would “buy” QS-Stars and actually use them for Marketing.  Singapore NTU (39) and MIT (1) both have 5+QS-Stars. As did the Universities of Waterloo (169), Monash (70) and Queensland (43). However, the Universities of of Cambridge (2), Harvard (3), Stanford University (4), Caltech (5) … have only 5 QS-Stars.  Brackets contain QS 2014 Rankings.  Note the UNRELIBILITY of QS Rankings vs QS-Stars, and therefore their absurd claims to VALIDITY and Credibility.

3)     And the Highly Lucrative "Consultancy" to help Universities Rise Up the QS Rankings.  Need to say more regarding QS’ commercial rather than Academic or Quality motivation?

4)     QS offers "Opportunities" for Branding from just $80,000 with QS Showcase. Another QS’ innovative commercial “Value” Service if Academic Reputation of Excellence is not enough to attract students.

5)     QS Reputation Survey has Weak Protocols, as demonstrated by this case of blatant manipulation. An Irish University President has, AGAINST QS’ Expressed Rules, asked all faculty members and other academic employees at his institution to each recruit three people from other universities to register to vote in the survey of university reputations.  QS allows Universities to encouraging people to sign up for the QS peer review survey, as long as they don't suggest favoring any one institution. Now, how does this actually work, seriously? 

6)     Finally, QS's business practices (fined GBP 80,000 or US$ 128,648 for using unlicensed software) leave an awful lot to be desired. Maybe, it’s just bad planning, inadequate IT policies or simply a lack of awareness.  Clearly, an Integrity issue for any Company desiring its Products to be viewed with Respect and Credibility.  

Kopi Level - Green

Read Full Article with References:

Dark Sides of A Global Universities Ranker

To Singapore With Love – A communist hangover?

The story untold of the communists in the founding years of Singapore and their fight against colonialism and struggle for political power is still very skimpy today. The film by Tan Pin Pin has received the highest disregard censorship category, not allowed to be screened commercially under any category except for private viewing. She is still fighting very hard to get the rating reviewed.
 
From the look of things, from what Yaacob commented in Parliament and the reasons for his objections, ‘one sided portrayals, whitewashing the past, and self serving accounts, conveniently inaccuracies’, it is unlikely that this film will see the light of the day unless there is a new govt in power.
 
I am wondering if Bill Clinton were to sell his bibliography here and conveniently left out his relationship with the intern, would his book be allowed for sale here, or would his film version also received a NAR rating. On the other hand, would To Singapore With Love be allowed for screening if Tan Pin Pin were to call it fiction instead of a historical account of what happened? There is no room for alternative views as far as history is concerned. There is only one correct version.
 
How, Tan Pin Pin, why not try to tell Yaacob that your film is fiction and should be viewed as fiction? At least there is a higher chance of getting a PG rating. Then let the people judge if it is fiction or truth or otherwise.
 
Today, Communism has been defeated and rejected. Communism is history and so is the CPM. Even if the govt allows political parties to contest for election, European countries have allowed it, would it draw any meaning support and followers from the people? And would the personal histories of some of these old veterans of a bygone era, of a defeated ideology, be a threat to our national security? The current threat, as rightly pointed out be Chee Hean, is IS. This one got to handle with absolute care and sensitivity.
 
At the height of the anti communist struggle and policies, the Govt even banned contacts and travelling to China and other communist countries. Today we are allowed to travel freely to these countries and China is even our biggest trading partner. The communists from these countries too can come here quite freely as well. Has anything changed? Should we come to terms with our historical past and move on? Are we suffering from some obsessions or phobia of the communist past or hang ups? Is the Singapore polity so fragile, the people so daft that a film of the irrelevant past could post a national security threat and lead to the break up of social order?
 
Communism and communist ideologies for anyone?

Kopi Level - Green

Indian, Indonesian, Thai bourses top performers

This is the headline of a ST report today. India was top with its index gaining 27% for the first nine months of the year. Thailand was second with a 24.5% gain while Indonesia came in third with a 21.5% gain. Singapore and Japan were joint fifth with a 3.5% gain.
 
What are the common factors of the three top Asian bourses? They did not allow external super computers to be plugged into their bourses computers to gain special advantage for the big boys. And I think their derivative markets are very small or non existent. Thirdly, I don’t think they spent millions to hire foreign talents to run their bourses. And fourthly, they did not turn their bourses into mini replicas of the NYSE in norms and substance.
 
Is that the way to go or is the Singapore way, aka American system the way to go? Or shall I rephrase that, what is the way to go up or to go down the gutters?

Kopi Level - Green