Disclaimer: The parts where I mentioned about grade fixated personels' perspectives DO NOT represent my point of views, but rather the point of views of the former.
Allow me a little introduction. The University Scholars Program at the National University of Singapore is a premier undergraduate program designed to develop the intellect, leadership and personal potential of promising students. There is a high degree of academic rigour involved in the courses offered, and there is higher expectations required of a student taking a University Scholars Program module in terms of preparation, homework, assignment and research. The academic requirements of a University Scholars Program module is higher than that of a General Elective module, taken by students outside the University Scholars Program. Quoting the website of the University Scholars Program, it offers a rigorous broad-based multidisciplinary curriculum and exciting local and overseas research and beyond-the-classroom learning opportunities. Students are admitted into the University Scholars Program on the basis of academic results and co-curricular activities records. They also have to write an essay and go through an interview. Thus, it doesn't come as a surprise that top students are admitted into the University Scholars Program.
From my research on graduate school admissions overseas especially the United States, I must qualify that going through the University Scholars Program would be able to put a candidate in an advantageous position. Graduate school admissions committees place a premium on a challenging academic curriculum because this will reflect to them the ability of the candidate to handle graduate school course work. In addition, modules offered by the University Scholars Program diverse as they are have an indepth coverage of the respective discipline or sub-discipline. Thus, I would like to qualify that as far as the University Scholars Program is concerned, it's main benefit is rather catered to those intending to go to graduate schools.
Now, readers may question, what about the "uncertain waters" in my title? The uncertain waters refers to our grade-fixated society. However, I also must qualify that the situation is helped in no part by the bell-curve grading policy adopted by the University Scholars Program in the grading of its modules. It may be attributed to a prevailing Asian mentality that results in a fixation on grades. Indeed, a grade-fixated head hunter did admitted to me that he has a tendency to look for graduates with top honours degrees. Even some sectors within the civil service at entry level require graduates with good degrees, like Monetary Authority of Singapore. For graduates intending to obtain scholarships from agencies like A*STAR, they would need a second upper honors or better. Hence, it may not be that surprising that even students are fixated over grades.
Allow me to touch on the open fact about the University Scholars Program's bell curve grading policy. From the perspective of a student who is fixated over grades, he/she will not relish the prospect of participating in the University Scholars Program. The reason is two-fold. He would be better off taking an ordinary General Education Module, which is nowhere as academically rigorous as a University Scholars Program module, and have more time for his other modules and degree course work. The second reason is that the grade fixated student do not want to risk scoring a poor grade as a result of the bell curve grading policy adopted by the University Scholars Program in a class of top students. Thus, if we take academic demands, time dedicated to the module and bell curve into consideration, for every grade that a grade-fixated student can score for a University Scholars Program module, he can score at least two grades better for an ordinary General Education Module, and he will see no reason why he should participate in the University Scholars Program. Another consideration is that a student can exercise a Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory option on a General Education Module outside his faculty, but a student in the University Scholars Program cannot exercise the Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory option on a University Scholars Program module. A module that is declared Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory will have no bearing on the CAP/GPA.
From my interaction with friends who opted to leave the University Scholars Program, I was told that they made the choice because they did not want to affect their chances of getting a First Class Honors. They are brilliant lads, and I think it's some sort of a waste that they chose to leave the University Scholars Program. And I do know friends who were of First Class honors calibre not being able to obtain a First Class Honors because their CAP/GPA were pulled down by a string of B pluses or B grades obtained for their University Scholars Program modules, when they could have obtained better grades for reading ordinary General Education Modules instead.
In the uncertain waters lies the harsh dose of reality. To the grade-fixated student, there is no comparative advantage in taking part in the University Scholars Program if grades was his end. The only reward for successfully completing the University Scholar Program is a certificate recognizing that one is a University Scholar. However, the sad fact is that for the grade-fixated employer, only the Honors classification matters. I would like to believe that the University Scholars Program would like its graduates to be leaders in their field and in the society. However, the challenges that it faces comes against the backdrop of a grade-fixated society like ours. If, for example, a University Scholar upon graduation obtained a not-so-good Honors degree (because of a few Bs in his University Scholars Program modules) and is passionate about working in the MAS (Monetary Authority Singapore), but does not make the academic requirements of a graduate officer at MAS, I don't see how to expect an alumnus in this case to be a leader if he cannot end up doing something he has the passion for.
An oft aforementioned point in this write-up so far is the use of bell shaped curve as a grading policy by the University Scholars Program. Some grade fixated students will argue that since they are already undergoing a rigorous curriculum, why should they be penalized by virtue of their position on the bell shaped curve? They will not think it's worth the while to spend to much time on a module, and be placed on a Bell curve, ending up with a B, when he could have gotten an A for doing a lot less in an ordinary General Education Module, and get to spend more time for his other modules. There is also the additional arguement by the grade-fixated students that since the University Scholars Program has already siphoned out the top students during the initial application process of essay writing and interviews, why go to the extent of segregating them further in the University Scholars Program modules? Why go so far to separate the A pluses, As, A minuses, B pluses, etc, over a small difference in marks? Since the University Scholars Program has identified the top students, shouldn't they deserve better?
Grade fixation presents a steep challenge to the University Scholars Program, and in the eyes of a grade-fixated student, in order for the University Scholars Program to be attractive, it needs to address the disadvantages that a student in the University Scholars Program faces vis-a-vis a student taking ordinary General Education Modules. If the University Scholars Program wants to address this disadvantage, what are the possible solutions then? There is a possible solution suggested by Lee Chenghao, a commentator on Aaron Ng's blog in his exchange with A*STAR's outgoing chairman Mr Philip Yeo about A*STAR's 3.8 GPA and I will quote it in its entirety,"why not have a system that recognize individual modules have different difficulty and adjust the rates accordingly? Then, the final criteria would be difficulty x GPA. This solution by Lee Chenghao recognizes the difficulty of University Scholars Program modules, and allow the moderation of CAP/GPA. In that way, students in the University Scholars Program on their way to a good honors degree will not lose out to ordinary students taking General Education Modules, which will help the former more in the environment of grade fixation.
I also learn from friends that the University Scholars Program strives to promote its name by participating in joint programs with Ivy League universities and other top universities worldwide. It remains to be seen if the University Scholars Program has conducted outreach to government agencies and scholarship agencies like A*STAR to promote its name, i.e. a University scholar with a CAP of say 4.3-4.4 is equivalent to a non-University Scholar with a CAP of 4.5 or First Class Honors.
That being said, I still believe that the University Scholars Program with its goals and philosophy is vintage seed, BUT the soil conditions is still not suitable as yet.
37 comments:
It does not make sense that employers do not recognise the greater difficulty of USP. In the US everyone knows that a 3.6 from MIT is more impressive than a 3.8 from Ulu State University. I would have thought that employers in Sg would have done their research. It is not really economically rational for them to hire the grade-grubbers who shirked the challenge of USP anyway.
Dear Testtube:
I know USP is in the radar of ivy league universities but I do not know as of know whether USP attempts to make an outreach to employment agencies, head hunters, scholarship agencies, etc.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dr Dee,
You might like to know that unlike other modules offered in the university, students taking USP modules are not subjected to the bell curve (although this might change according to some rumours), which will then weaken the point you have been trying to make.
I would like to hear more about your views now, taking this new information into consideration.
If you feel there's a need to discuss, you can always email me at neutral.bystander@gmail.com
Thanks!
Dear Neutral Bystander:
You can confirm about the Bell curve thing with a USP staff. You can get the contact details at the website.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dear Neutral Bystander:
Not only can you confirm about the Bell curve thing with a USP staff, there are lecturers who are explicit about this "class ranking" thingy. I am confident as of now my information is correct.
Yours sincerely
Dr Dee
i did happen to ask a lecturer from USP if the class is subjected to bell curve, and he said no. despite the class being bigger than 30. so i don't know how is this going to be resolved. =)
Dear Neutral Bystander
You should approach the administrator because the lecturer will submit the raw grades to the administrators, and the grades are allocated. You can confirm it with either NUS registrat or USP admin staff.
Yours sincerely
Dr Dee
Dear Neutral Bystander:
You said:"i did happen to ask a lecturer from USP if the class is subjected to bell curve, and he said no. despite the class being bigger than 30. so i don't know how is this going to be resolved. =) "
You need a high clearance if you want to know the exact % of the breakdown of grades but essentially it's still bell curve. However, you need to approach the USP staff and give a valid reason why you want an exact breakdown. This is because the issue of grades is sensitive and they don't announce the breakdown to the whole world.
Yours sincerely
Dr Dee
I agree Singaporeans overall overweight 'quantifying success'. However in the real world, grades are somewhat important but they are not a deal breaker for a successful hire.
Singapore Inc's posture on grades is related to this thing about public accountability and general public jealousy masquerading as 'what about the poor guys..'. The more people complain, the more insecure bureaucrats feel and they spawn new rules.
Nothing new here, been that way for at least 40 years. Controls corruption (think about this a little before you nuke me) but I think we have outgrown that.
Tough for folks to swallow grade anxiety when you are going through it but this pup has seen it all and has survived to mature doghood so... its possible to navigate the system...
The important question is.. why bother if there is an easier track somewhere else...
That last comment should prompt the bureaucrats to think of how to shift gears and allow for more flexible evaluation of 'return on investment'.
"You need a high clearance if you want to know the exact % of the breakdown of grades but essentially it's still bell curve. However, you need to approach the USP staff and give a valid reason why you want an exact breakdown. This is because the issue of grades is sensitive and they don't announce the breakdown to the whole world."
it's true. one would need high clearance to know. they won't disclose the breakdown, but i am still standing by my view that there's no bell curve (according to credible sources).
anyway, the bell curve issue had been covered by campus observer, a neutral reporting media on the school. you might like to read it at http://www.campusobserver.org/2007/March/08/bellcurve/curve.html
just to clarify.
there's no bell curve for USP modules (according to credible sources.)
and no, they don't announce to ANYONE about the breakdown. so i would just like to know how you would know about the fact that there's a bell curve for USP modules? since USP administrators won't disclose it to anyone?
Dear Neutral Bystander:
Are you a USP student yourself?
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
nope. but quite a lot of all my friends in my clique are.
Dear Neutral Bystander:
They will not reveal the grading policies (bell curve or not) to any Tom, Dick and Harry. However, there are ways and means to get information from the administrators. It will be more advantageous if you are a USP student yourself. All I can is that it's a bell shaped curve. HOWEVER, the specific breakdown as in the % getting A+, A, A-, B+, etc, is HIGHLY CLASSIFIED. To obtain the exact breakdown, the one requesting must be a USP student. Besides the USP student must convince them of the need to provide the information for the breakdown, BUT the latter must seek higher authority first. I cannot divulge too much on this sensitive topic, BUT as of now, I stand by what I say about the bell curve grading.
P.S. if you approach the administrator AS A USP STUDENT and tell him of your CIRCUMSTANCES that you need to provide the grading policy of your USP modules, you would get a reply. If you are an outsider approaching the administrator, I am not surprised if you get a different reply. The administrators say it's a sensitive issue.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
hey dr dee, thanks for taking time to reply to my comments. your patience is appreciated. =)
Dear Neutral Bystander:
You are always welcome to come back to the same table in tavern!!! I am open to any form of discussion.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dr Dee,
The KTM happens to agree with A*STAR's policy of expecting its scholars to maintain a GPA of 3.8. That really translates to one B for every 4 A's. Four other points:
One, grade inflation in the US is quite serious. It really isn't all that hard to get A's, even at the top schools like MIT and Harvard.
You find any Singaporean undergrads at these schools, you ask them what their GPAs are and you will be hard-pressed to find one with less than 3.8 (or its equivalent). And if you check their transcripts, they dun only do the bare minimum, they do extra classes so that they can get two degrees in 4 years (even though they are not required to do so). The KTM doesn't understand the fuss.
All it probably takes is to be in the top 30% of a class to get an A. Scholar leh, cannot even make it to top 30%? Allowed to mess up once every 5 classes some more.
Two, scholars are sent on public funds. If they cannot even maintain good grades, they should be terminated with immediate effect. Why waste tax payers' monies?
Three, in any case, this 3.8 GPA is not about termination. It is about whether A*STAR should sponsor these fellas for graduate school. If these fellas cannot make the grade, then might as well spend the money on someone else. We should also make room for late bloomers, i.e. those who didn't do well at A Levels, but somehow shine during undergrad studies.
The KTM is not saying that good grades and ability to do good research is the same thing. But fact is, good grades usually implies good head, which is helpful for research.
Four, Philip Yeo has clarified that this 3.8 GPA is not cast in stone. The A*STAR scholars can appeal. Seriously lah, if one these fellas can get into a top grad school with a lousy GPA, do you think he/she cannot convince A*STAR to allow him to go? Fact of the matter is that with a lousy GPA, it's hard to get into a good grad school.
What's probably true for A*STAR is that they are offering too many scholarships and some to undeserving candidates who have to struggle to maintain their GPA. If A*STAR is more selective and offers fewer scholarships, quality of scholars will be higher and this GPA issue will become a non-issue.
Dear Kwayteowman:
Thanks for visiting this tavern of mine. You brought up a pertinent issue - grade inflation. I would like to qualify that grade inflation doesn't apply to American institutions. You can check up University of Chicago and Georgia Institute of Technology.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dr Dee,
Not sure you have addressed any of the KTM's points at all. When you say that grade inflation doesn't apply to Chicago and Georgia Tech, what do you mean?
Perhaps grade inflation was a lousy way to describe the KTM's point one. Let's try again.
Question: what is the proportion of students in a class who get A's in Chicago and Georgia Tech? Is it less than say 20%? The KTM finds it hard to believe that it's less than 20%.
Is it too much to expect our scholars to be in the top 20% of their class?
There are three other points that you didn't address. Perhaps you can explain why you are against the 3.8 GPA policy? Or perhaps provide the KTM with a link so that he can understand your point of view?
Warmest Regards.
Dear Kwayteowman:
I am not sure whether MIT suffers from grade inflation like the ivy league. However, allow me to use Georgia Institute of Technology as an example. Georgia Institute of Technology definitely doesn't suffer from that. Allow me to point you to a few resources. Definitely, it doesn't have a shocking huge numbers of As.
In Georgia Institue of Technology, grading is based on a bell-curved like NUS.
Allow me to point you to a resource
http://www0.epinions.com/content_60565196420
Quotes about failure rate in Georgia Institute of Technology
"Remember that I said that GaTech tuition is FREE if you have HOPE? Well, many of GaTech student's end up HOPE-less. Many freshman and even some sophomore classes are considered "weed-out" classes, and quite a few students find it difficult to pass much less maintain a 3.0. Although the number has improved, it used to be that about 1/3 of entering freshmen wouldn't make it through the first year. Part of the problem is that although GaTech is one of the toughest schools in the nation, it is not the absolute toughest to get in, at least for instate students. This is in sharp contrast to schools such as Stanford - which ranks among the hardest to get in - but is much easier to stay in and maintain a high GPA (3.9s and 4.0s are not shockingly uncommon there). I think that GaTech's relatively high acceptance rate and lower graduation rate probably harm its rankings, but the unspoken philosophy of the school seems to be survival of the fittest.
Why is it so difficult to maintain a 3.0? Well, for one thing, many professors are concerned about their personal research and not about teaching. They don't care whether you learn anything or not. There are also some other professors whom seem to take sadistic pride in announcing how many students they plan to fail on the first day of class (this happened in one of my math classes and also in a physics class). These professors are in addition to the many professors who don't have ill intent but just have no ability when it comes to teaching. Teaching skills are not why they are hired to work at GaTech; prominence in the field and research skills are what is most desired. Heck, some of the professors don't even speak English well enough for you to know whether they have teaching skills or not."
Quote on the bell-curve:
"Bell curves are taken very seriously at Tech, and let me assure you that the "F"-side of the bell curve is not ignored. I even know of a professor who was asked to give out more bad grades by his department! He was one of the gems who was genuinely interested in teaching, and in his class he really tried to challenge the students. When it was time for grades, I think he didn't want to penalize students, and plus, I think he thought that most of the class actually did learn something and didn't deserve to fail.
Although it doesn't regularly occur because most professors have to curve up significantly for anyone at all to pass (hooray a 40 = an A!), I do know of instances where people had an "A" average in a class but received a "B" because they were downgraded due to the bell curve grading system. Even GaTech knows it's hard to maintain a high GPA: if you make it through GaTech with a mere 3.2, you graduate with honors (3.4 gets you high honors and 3.6 gets highest honors). At many other respected schools that I know of, your GPA will be in the range of 3.8-4.0 before you receive any type of honors."
Allow me to point you to another resource:
"http://www.vault.com/graddegree/school/school_main.jsp?program_id=1397&type=2&co_page=3&ch_id=408&response_id=73935&response_list=75430,75256,74510,74223,74153,74143,74110,74077,74067,74065,74030,74028,74002,74000,73935,73930,73914,73910,73904,73902,73894,73891,73890,73887,73886,73884,73880,73684,73654,73473,73286,73242,72784,72750,72737,72736,72733,72728,72725,72724,72722,72720,51071,51061,51012,50946,50942,50918,50909,50906,50905,50904,50899,50894,50892,50886,50882,50881,50880,50877,89823,88286,82485,81783,78946,73287,73283,72754,72735,72721,72717,72713,71263,64304,59884,58744,55126,51882,51730,48738,40699,39940,32139,25198,10113,5716,5556,5280,4948,4944,4916,1528,780&pt=1&gs=
"Though efforts are improving, GT has never done extremely well with
graduation rates. Typically about 75-80% in 5 years, 90% in 6."
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dear Kwayteowman:
There is another thing you need to know. If you want to stick with percentile in class, then stick with it. If you are in an institution with grade inflation, let me tell you that you wouldn't end up in the top 5% in your class with a 3.8 GPA, which usually gives you a summa cum laude.
In Georgia Institute of Technology, 3.6 will net you at the top of your class. In most admission processes to graduate school, you are required to state the percentile you finished within your class.
The issue about GPA is that rightly as you said, it's subjected to the dynamics of the grading system, however, looking at the percentile in class will tell you more than looking at GPA numbers themselves.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dr Dee,
The KTM unfortunately does not find your argument compelling.
Are you claiming that the curve at GaTech is so bad that the cut off is less than 20% of the class? The KTM finds it hard to believe.
Even if GaTech is somewhat nasty, the question is whether the MAJORITY of the schools that A*STAR sends its scholars to are equally nasty and therefore the 3.8 GPA requirement is unreasonable.
The world does not GaTech make.
Warmest Regards.
Dear Kwayteowman:
You said: Are you claiming that the curve at GaTech is so bad that the cut off is less than 20% of the class? The KTM finds it hard to believe.
I would think you find it harder to believe, but 20% of the student population receiving As does result in grade inflation. In the case of Harvard that is known for grade inflation, 25% of students receive As. Allow me to cite a wikipedia resource about a Professor in Harvard, Professor Harvey C. Mansfield.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Mansfield
"Grade inflation, affirmative action, and the ironic grade
Mansfield is well-known for his opposition to grade inflation at Harvard University, which he claims is due in part to affirmative action. This controversial opinion provoked peaceful demonstrations, including a sit in strike outside his classroom (to which Professor Mansfield did not object). Ultimately, it led to an affirmative action debate between Cornell West and Michael Sandel (pro-affirmative action) and Harvey Mansfield and Ruth Wisse (anti-affirmative action). The debate attracted so much attention at Harvard University that the venue had to be changed twice, finally taking place November 3, 1997 to a standing-room only crowd in Harvard's Sanders Theater, prompting Professor Sandel to comment, "This puts to rest the myth that this generation has a political apathy, and apathy to political debates."[3]
In response to grade inflation, Mansfield famously created the "ironic grade" in order to let his students know what they really deserved in his class without causing them harm by grading them lower than the other professors at Harvard. At the end of the semester, Professor Mansfield assigns to each student two grades, one deserved and one undeserved (the undeserved grade is necessarily better than the deserved grade and conforms to the ordinary Harvard curve of approximately 25% A's, 25% A-'s, 20% B+'s, 15% B's). Only the undeserved (higher) grade is reported to the registrar to be placed on the transcript; however, students are individually given their deserved (lower) grades, which usually center around a C or C-minus, earning him the nick-name "Harvey C-minus Mansfield."[4][5] Mansfield himself has joked that the C stands for compassion. "That's what I lack when it comes to grading."[4]
Now, if GaTech has never been known for grade inflation, but rather high failure rate or a 3.6 GPA giving the highest honor, do you think it dishes out 20% As to the student population. I don't think so. If you are not convinced, you try to contact GaTech.
Lastly, I never did claim that GaTech makes the world. In my previous comments, I mentioned that NOT ALL AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS suffer from GRADE INFLATION. GaTech was one of my cited examples.
With regards to the question of A*STAR scholars going to GaTech, you might want to verify with Mr Philip Yeo yourself. I am not an authorative source on this.
Secondly, there is a second part to my arguement. Percentile in class. Imagine this scenario. A Princeton graduate has a GPA of 3.8 and a GaTech graduate with a GPA of 3.6. The Princeton graduate is only in the top 25th percentile, while the GaTech graduate tops his entire class. Obviously, the GaTech graduate has done better compared with his peers than the Princeton graduate.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dr Dee,
The KTM believes that you have failed to make a convincing case for disagreeing with the 3.8 GPA policy. It seems that you do not know whether the A*STAR scholars are going to schools with inflated grades. In fact, you do not know for a fact if GaTech awards A's to fewer than 20% of its class.
You are simply assuming that it is so because 3.6 gives highest honor. Out of curiosity, do you know what is the percentage of the students who get this highest honour?
But we are wasting too much time on GaTech and not addressing the crux of the issue. Your Harvard example is actually bad. When the KTM says A, he actually means A+/A/A-. By this definition, Harvard has 50% A's if your numbers are correct. Of course that's serious grade inflation. 20% A's ain't too bad in the KTM's opinion.
What exactly is your beef with the 3.8 GPA policy? Still not clear to the KTM. :-(
Dear Kwayteowman:
Harvard doesn't dish out A+ to begin with. Secondly, you did not define A as A+/A/A-. It would have been a lot easier if you have done so earlier. If you are talking about the actual A grade alone, I don't think GaTech dishes 20% As, if not we are looking at grade inflation. A/A-, I don't claim to have any information on that. Just in case you didn't know, an A- grade is worth 3.7 quality points, falling short of the 3.8 GPA.
Secondly, I was wondering if you have read the link I have given you. I mentioned that 3.6 GPA will get you TOP OF THE CLASS, the highest honor in GaTech, which is equivalent to a summa cum laude that is awarded to the top 4%-5% in the cohort. In an institution with grade inflation, it's not necessary that 3.8 GPA gets you top 5% in the cohort.
Lastly, I think you failed to see my point in its entirety. Remember I mentioned about percentile. My earlier point about bell curve and others are about grading dynamics. I did mention something about percentile performance. GPA figures ALONE DON'T give you percentile performance. The point is that A*STAR wants to insist on a 3.8 GPA, but what if a GaTech graduate who graduates with the higest honors on top of class has a 3.6 GPA as compared to a 3.8 GPA from Princeton who is not even top 10% of his class (GPAs of over 4.0 are common in Princeton) were to apply for an A*STAR scholarship (overseas)? You need to see my arguement as a whole, 1) Grading dynamics 2) Percentile performance. Just in case you did not know, admissions to graduate schools in US require the applicant to state his percentile performance. If I am in the admissions committee, who would I be more impressed with? A top 4 - 5% highest Honor graduate with 3.6 GPA from a renowned tech school like GaTech of a 3.8 GPA from Princeton who is not even in the top 20% of his class. You CANNOT IGNORE percentile performance too.
Lastly, you also must consider another important fact behind the GPA, the rigour of the curriculum. I have touched on it extensively, so I don't want to repeat it. I can point you to other posts I have made.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dr Dee,
Secondly, you did not define A as A+/A/A-. It would have been a lot easier if you have done so earlier.
Perhaps. My apologies.
Just in case you didn't know, an A- grade is worth 3.7 quality points, falling short of the 3.8 GPA.
Fair enough, means that an A- is a minor blunder. Note also however that A- isn't 3.7 for all schools. At MIT for example, A and A- yield the same GPA.
Back to the main discussion. The KTM would much appreciate it if you can frame your arguments clearly. Perhaps follow the following template:
I do not agree with the 3.8 GPA policy because:
(a) yada yada. Elaborate.
(b) yada yada. Elaborate.
Another thing you have to do is to address the KTM's four points. Seem like all you have been doing is trying to give evidence against KTM's first point about "grade inflation". Fair enough. Does it mean that you agree with the remaining three?
Actually, even your disagreement with the first ain't going too well because to prove your case, you don't only have to prove that there exists schools where inflation is not too bad. You have to show that the majority of A*STAR scholars goes to schools where a GPA of 3.8 is an unreasonable requirement.
You go round and round talking about GaTech's GPA policy and the KTM still doesn't understand your argument. Please. Thanks.
Two random points related to what you just said:
1. A Princeton scholar is likely to be better than a GaTech scholar to begin with given how incredibly difficult it is for Singaporeans to get into Princeton.
2. I think it is reasonable to expect the scholars to come back with at least magna cum laude. Summa is also not unreasonable if the scholar doesn't go to a place like Harvard/Princeton. :-P
These two are just random points. Please don't waste too much time addressing them and digress. We should get to the point.
Warmest Regards.
Dear Kwayteowman:
You still did not take my arguement into entirety. At the initial level, grading system (whether it results in grade inflation or not) and at the next level, percentile performance in class.
I would like to qualify that 3.8 GPA does not necessarily get you a magna cum laude if grade inflation is rife within the institution. Whether the scholar gets summa, magna or cum laude, it depends on percentile performance. In Princeton, there are quite a number with a GPA of above 4.0.
Secondly, you may think that Georgia Technology is easier to get in BUT, it's no pushover because it's ranked among the top 10 public colleges. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out whether GaTech or Princeton has a superior engineering, computing and science undergraduate program. Looking at mere entry requirements is too one tracked. You need to consider the curriculum in these universities. If you are an employer and two graduates apply to work for you, one a 3.8 GPA engineering graduate from Princeton, and the other, a 3.6 GPA engineering graduate from GaTech, who would you choose? Entry requirements does not maketh a university.
As for MIT, the grading system is based on levels of subject understanding from A all the way to P. Yes, + and - modifiers carry no weight.
Lastly, if you haven't grasp my point. It is this. I do not agree with use of 3.8 GPA across the board. Firstly, not all institutions suffer from grade inflation. Second, GPA without information on percentile performance isn't useful. Whilst I am okay with the use of 3.8 benchmark for institutions with grade inflation, it shouldn't be used for an institution like GaTech. Just ask yourself this question. A GaTech graduate with a 3.6 GPA and in the top 1% of his university approaches A*STAR for an NSS PhD scholarship (the one that requires 3.8 GPA), so do the GaTech graduate deserve a second look?
Lastly, I believed you might have accidentally missed out my earlier point, the toughness of curriculum. Graduate school admission committees take that into account. Try googling for the terms "GPA recalculation". Graduate schools will recalculate your GPA based on their standards, and toughness of a curriculum is taken into account. Believe it or not, it's possible to obtain a lower recalculated GPA as compared to the raw GPA if the candidate has been taking too many easy courses.
If you ask, I am advocating a wholesome view of a scholars curriculum besides GPA, and that includes toughness of curriculum and also percentile performance.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dr Dee,
"I am advocating a wholesome view of a scholars curriculum besides GPA, and that includes toughness of curriculum and also percentile performance"
Alamak, the KTM finally understands what you are trying to say and so the KTM can respond directly.
One, the KTM agrees that this so-called recalculation can be done, but it's not practical. How does A*STAR figure out the correct weights? While you seem to claim that GaTech is a better school than Princeton, the KTM really doesn't buy it. You can ask Philip Yeo and see if he will agree with you. :-P
There is an important thing that you must understand about policy. A policy need not be PERFECT. It only has to work for the majority. The rest how you may ask? Exception handling loh. :-)
Two, what's apparently happening in the A*STAR 3.8 GPA policy is that all the scholars who meet this requirement AUTOMATICALLY get PhD sponsorship. To some extent, the KTM even thinks this is a bit too lax given what you say about Princeton above. If you are saying that they shouldn't be given automatic sponsorship based on their GPA alone, the KTM can quite easily be persuaded to agree with you.
Three, the A*STAR undergrad scholars who dun meet this mark then goes before a review board or something to determine if A*STAR will give him/her PhD sponsorship. If that's not "a wholesome (re)view of a scholars curriculum besides GPA, and that includes toughness of curriculum and also percentile performance", then I dunno what they do there. Would you expect them to just sit around and drink tea? :-P
I hope that helps you with you understanding of what's going on and why the policy is actually quite sound and reasonable.
Warmest Regards.
Dear Kwayteowman:
I NEVER did say that it's the onus of A*STAR to re-calculate the GPA, rather it's the onus of the graduate school. It's never A*STAR's job.
There was one blogger who suggested to make A*STAR scholarship conditional upon the scholar's ability to receive postgraduate scholarship from the institution he is applying to
http://diodati.omniscientx.com/2007/02/16/the-smugness-of-ignorance-i
Consider this scenario. Leave out A*STAR for the moment. Imagine, I am a member of a postgraduate admission committee. Two scholars, one with a tough curriculum, which I recalculated to a higher GPA, and the other one took an easier curriculum. The lower GPA candidate scholar finished on a higher percentile in his institution. I would definitely make a decision to award the candidate with a lower raw GPA a postgraduate scholarship from my institution.
Put it that way, it's easier to gain admission into a graduate school if one doesn't indicates that he requires financial aid. Candidates who require financial aid and is eligible for postgraduate scholarship would have to compete with many others. The crux of the story is that if a candidate manages to obtain a postgraduate scholarship from his graduate school, that means he is ranked highly among all prospective candidates. That is why a blogger challenged Mr Philip Yeo to make A*STAR scholarships conditional upon earning a postgraduate scholarship from the institution in question.
In my honest opinion, it will be a little counter intuitive to sponser the whole lump sum of course fees for a postgraduate education. If you ask me, I would know the quality of the scholars from their ability to procure a postgraduate scholarship from their institution of interest. The government agency does not even need to bother, just leave the graduate schools to do their own admissions. However, then again, if the scholar has enough to support himself from a postgraduate scholarship, why would he need to apply to A*STAR? As I said, a little counter intuitive if I am confident in the ability of the scholar (rated highly for the graduate school to award him a postgraduate scholarship), and yet I am paying his entire postgraduate course fees. If a scholar can obtain a postgraduate scholarship, I don't have to sponser him that much. Save lots of money don't you think? On the other hand, if I sponser one scholar for his entire course fee and there is another chap in the postgraduate institution on scholarship from that institution itself, it would be obvious to me that the latter's ability is rated more highly than the former, and would be more deserving of the scholarship based on merit itself. However, if the latter is already on scholarship, why would he need to apply to A*STAR?
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dr Dee,
Ah, you've actaully ventured into territory where the KTM has a beef against A*STAR. :-)
While A*STAR requirement to require 3.8 GPA before offering sponsorship is completely defensible, the KTM fails to understand why A*STAR refuses to let its scholars take financial aid from the graduate schools. Yes, the KTM believes what he is saying is accurate, unless A*STAR has changed policy recently.
"The crux of the story is that if a candidate manages to obtain a postgraduate scholarship from his graduate school, that means he is ranked highly among all prospective candidates".
This statement is not true for many of the top schools. The fact is, most of the top graduate schools will give financial aid. Schools that don't and if the scholars get in only because they have their own funding, the KTM thinks are iffy (or rather the scholar concerned is iffy) and we are wasting tax payers' monies.
Your question on why "if the scholar has enough to support himself from a postgraduate scholarship, why would he need to apply to A*STAR" is easily answered. Well, they were sponsored by A*STAR for their undergrad studies and so that have a bond?
A*STAR's current policy to waste our tax payer's monies by insisting on paying for grad school is completely indefensible. :-)
Actually, are you conceding that the 3.8 GPA policy is reasonable? Be most grateful if you can be a little more explicit and focussed in your responses.
Warmest Regards.
Just to clarify the "not true" part. What the KTM is trying to say is that the top schools will give financial aid to the majority of the admitted graduate students and so it doesn't really say much (or that "he is ranked highly among all prospective candidates"). However, the fact that the fella got admitted to begin with does say something. Yes, the KTM is being a bit pedantic. :-)
Forgot to respond to this:
"There was one blogger who suggested to make A*STAR scholarship conditional upon the scholar's ability to receive postgraduate scholarship from the institution he is applying to"
There are also some schools that are a bit stingy and don't have scholarships (many) to begin with. So, a blanket policy may not be in our best interest. Also, we are not trying to save money here.
I think the point is that if the scholars can get into the top schools, we are willing to pay. The scholar must however demonstrate some minimal level of intellect/academic brilliance to provide us with some level of assurance that we are not going be burning money on him.
Anyhow, the KTM isn't saying that the current 3.8 GPA is the best possible solution or that it cannot be refined. His position is that it kinda works and lots of kay pohs are barking up the wrong tree in opposing it.
Dear Kwayteowman:
I think let's get our terminologies right first. Financial aid is financial aid, which is usually given to poor students. Yes, I agree that most ivy leagues would have dished out financial aids, but to poor students. I have a feeling you mixed up financial aid with postgraduate scholarship.
A Ph.D. scholarship or a postgraduate scholarship is different, which is a scholarship awarded to graduate students. In order to qualify for that, the candidate must compete with many other talents in the world who are also eyeing the limited places.
I am also not sure if you missed out my earlier arguement or a point brought up by a poster in Elia's blog, but if a graduate states upfront that he needs to apply for a postgraduate scholarship, as opposed to a graduate who seeks funding else where, it's easier for the latter to enter the graduate school. For the former, it's harder. There is limited places for those who require postgraduate scholarships. Please do not assume that top graduate schools are able to dish out postgraduate scholarships to every single admitted postgraduate student. Funding department-wise is limited, and thus, places are limited. However, if an applicant can obtain funding elsewhere (from A*STAR) for example, all the more better. Easier for him to be admitted if he doesn't require postgraduate scholarship.
Actually, if you read the stand of mine and other posters when we engaged Mr Philip Yeo, all we were saying is that A*STAR shouldn't be concerned with 3.8 GPA. Let the graduate school admission committees recalculate the GPAs themselves. Let them evaluate the undergraduate curriculum and decide for themselves if the graduate is fit to do graduate school. Let them decide who to admit and award the postgraduate scholarships. If a scholar is able to obtain a postgraduate scholarship whereby there are limited vacancies in a top institution, it speaks very much of his calibre. In short, graduate schools can gauge the ability of a graduate better than any government stat board in Singapore, including A*STAR. A*STAR can save a lot of money too if the graduate can obtain a postgraduate scholarship too. I mean the tax monies saved can come in useful for other purposes too.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dr Dee,
"all we were saying is that A*STAR shouldn't be concerned with 3.8 GPA"
And the KTM disagrees with this because there is a need for scholars to be accountable to the tax payers. KTM's point: 3.8 GPA isn't an unreasonable requirement and those who cannot even meet this requirement probably shouldn't have been awarded a scholarhship to begin with.
Of course there is an issue of the weaker scholars taking easier classes to shore up their GPA. Can't be helped lah. Unless we are willing to be more stingent on the offers, which the KTM is not adverse to. He's always felt that we have too many of these scholars.
At the graduate level, we're taking about RA/TA's. Perhaps financial aid was bad terminology.
"Please do not assume that top graduate schools are able to dish out postgraduate scholarships to every single admitted postgraduate student".
The ones that the KTM are familiar with are able to give RA/TA/fellowship to the majority of admitted grad students. Therefore it's not very discriminating.
Agree with you that the GPA shouldn't be the only criterion for deciding on whether to sponser scholars for PhD. No point having a 4.0 GPA scholar who goe to an ulu grad school. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that the scholars' progress need not be monitored and scholars be asked to maintain a minimal standard to academic performance.
"In short, graduate schools can gauge the ability of a graduate better than any government stat board in Singapore, including A*STAR. A*STAR can save a lot of money too if the graduate can obtain a postgraduate scholarship too".
There are scholars who are able to get funding from their schools, but A*STAR die die wants to pay. That's the problem. Seems like you're not getting this point. :-(
The KTM has nothing further to add. Good day.
Warmest Regards.
Dear Kwayteowman:
I believe you are viewing a Ph.D. scholarship similarly to that of a Teaching Assistantship or a Research Assistantship. I think it's necessary to get this clear. Ph.D. scholarship is NOT EQUAL to Teaching Assitantship or Research Assistantship. All Institutions of Higher Learning hire full time Teaching Assistants, including National University of Singapore FOR THE PURPOSE OF TEACHING. The hiring of Research Assistants has got nothing to do with getting a Ph.D. scholarship either, but whether the principal investigator has enough grants. When the principal investigator submits an application for grants, he may have to submit a breakdown of expenditure, including the Research Assistants' salaries. For the funding of a Ph.D. student's scholarship, the monies usually comes from the department whereby he is admitted into. A Ph.D. student on postgraduate scholarship may do the job of a Research Assistant or a Teaching Assistant, but let's get this clear, someone HIRED as a Research Assistant or Teaching Assistant is not equal to a Ph.D. student on Ph.D. scholarship.
Lastly, you said:"There are scholars who are able to get funding from their schools, but A*STAR die die wants to pay. That's the problem. Seems like you're not getting this point. :-("
If you make such an assertion, you need to produce hard evidence that A*STAR scholars did qualify for postgraduate scholarships when they applied to the institutions of interest. Please back up your claim with data. GPA figures will not suffice.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Post a Comment