Feedback on Education and Lifelong Learning

If I do get to participate in the Forward Singapore feedback sessions, I'm going to talk about two issues:

a) Changing the grading system in local universities

There's been a big change jumping from NUS Engineering school in 1995 to SMU Law School in 2014.

The most immediate change is the increase in levels of anxiety which I was not really prepared for even though I'm kinda used to the academic environment. I don't come from a generation that really gives a damn about mental health but I witnessed a nervous breakdown in class and an exam score hacking from another classmate. The system is really unhealthy and students don't get to work on their personalities and interests because final grades are so consequential. ( eg. Baker and McKenzie will only interview anyone with SMU GPA > 3.7 )

It's extra grating because SMU likes to put happy faces on the walls while you are getting to the lecture theatres. The fucking dancers on campus don't help because they are actually not from SMU. 

One problem is that universities see themselves as being in the service of industries and GPAs function as some kind of shortcut that HR managers love. 

I propose a simpler three-grade system for local degrees.  For every subject, either you pass, fail or get a distinction. A distinction means you score in the top 5% of your cohort. Scoring and weights for the final degree classification should be confidential and students should also just get three grades Fail, Pass and Distinction. 

The system still celebrates excellence and some top employers can still use the distinction grade as selection criteria, but students still get a chance to shape their resumes with more internships, CCAs or hobbies. 

Let's not spoil the HR managers and let them try to learn more about an interviewee rather than to fixate on just one aggregate score. 

Graduates are not wagyu beef.

b) Claw-back of Skillfutures payouts

During the pandemic, it is possible to sign up for courses that pay $1,200-$1,500 per month for six months. This is a lifesaver during the pandemic but we're not getting numbers on re-employment after training is over. I do know that folks who do not get a job after 6 months exist in Singapore, some are highly educated, which makes this convenient money grab at the expense of taxpayers.

When I learnt about this loophole, I was so angry I actually took steps to actively rebel against the taxman last year.  ( But it's totally legal, I used my dividends and fees to generate $50k+ of tax deductibles by maxing out my SRS, CPF and Medisave contributions. ) I ended up cutting my nose to spite my face and lowered my standard of living so that I don't have to pay a single cent of income tax this year.

I'm probably going to do this again this year even though we are out of lockdowns. The price I pay is that I don't get fancy travel, but at least I get the satisfaction that my money is not used to subsidise these deadbeats. ( Having more money in CPF-SA is not too bad as well. )

I want future schemes to include a claw-back provision. If a job is not found six months after training, then maybe a clawback amount of $2,000 should be imposed to provide an incentive for the bum to at least try to get employed. I am aware that the government is now more careful in selecting candidates for these incentives but I think clawbacks should plainly be outcome-driven. 

As I do invest in my student portfolios, the government may even want to claw back money from training firms as well, but this can be smaller at maybe 5% of revenue for each student who does not get a job within 6 months. This way the schools have an incentive to actively filter potential students.

I'm sure other citizens will have different peeves and I respect them for it. 

But do let me know whether you agree with my approach.