My Ideal fantastic university education

I briefly mentioned my dream university curriculum but I couldn't develop it fully since I had to rush off to go somewhere. And so, more elaborated:

My dream university curriculum:

I'm wondering if I'm a Black Swan myself - the highly improbable freak event that, when happens, causes drastic changes to whatever system the Black Swan is embedded in. But that's just a personal opinion. What I'm really wondering about, is whether I'm a 'statistical outlier' - meaning, the dumb guy who refuses to play by the rules, and wants to do something different, or will I be the leading edge of a tide, the person who will set the trend for others after. But whichever it is, I have in mind, the idea of an ideal university education...

But just before I go on, something very quickly about NUS. I think NUS, in trying to accomodate British and American systems, has instead, become this weird creature that's really neither.The British system of majors works because it was created for industrialism, where specialisation was required. Hence the fixed programme, where once people went through it, they would have attained a high degree of specialty for whatever industry they are studying for.

The American system, however, emphasizes personal freedom and choice. So within the scope of the modular system, people could take basically, whatever they wanted, only focusing in their later years, and where intense effort is required.

So they are very different systems, designed with very different philosophies in mind. NUS, credit to them, has tried to balance the different impulses - by emphasizing the course - which means fixed curricula, and by implementing the modular system, which allows freedom of choice and whatnot.

For most people, it works out fine. Singapore's education system has been that of specialisation anyway, all the way from secondary school to junior colleges, and the entire process could be said to be a narrowing down of subjects. So it works, and I give credit to the people who made it work.

But well... there are this bunch of people who are just... active in their minds, who want to do everything, and are prepared, through their background, to do entirely new things under the sun. This bunch of people would have been really happy in the American system, but they are stuck in NUS. I am, actually.

But I suspect that I won't be the only one. I'm betting that there will be more people who will develop the inclinations that I have developed, who have read up on so much, that they are essentially graduates going through the universities just to get the qualification. But they are in an university, and some of them might see it as the opportunity to do the things they've always wanted to do, with the added bonus of having their efforts recognised. Or rather, that's what I've always thought. But again, I want to emphasize: the current system has worked for many people, and though tweaks are needed every now and then, I do understand that there are constraints, and that not everyone can have the education that they want. However, there is a emotional cost to that, that interests may be killed, bright young motivated people might just lose their spark, and something amazing might just be lost from the university, in spite of university.

So in my head, I fantasize about the kind of education that I've always wanted, and though people might not agree with it, well...

It could be something within USP. But this will be USP to the max, with the ideal of multidisciplinary endeavour pushed to the extreme.

It has to be uber-selective, in searching for students who can move across different disciplines with equal ease. Although there will be people who are aware, this uber-programme needs to have people who have genuine intellectual depth, who have done prior extensive programme before they could even be considered to be able to handle the workload. At the same time, there has to be strong institutional support - it is as dependent on the instructors as it will be on the dynamism of the students. It will be difficult, since good teachers are hard to find, and the context of NUS's priorities make it even harder.

Which leads me to another point before I go onto syllabus design. NUS is currently, almost, fixated on marketing itself as a research university. Which is unfortunate for undergraduate education since there will be many lecturers who will prefer to sit at their desk or at their labs crunching numbers for their experiment, or going through journals for their research. Which is ironic, since, if there are people who prefer to be elsewhere and teach really badly, then NUS is ultimately kicking itself in the foot - by discouraging students to do research, hence decreasing the number of students encouraged to do decent work in their respective courses. Now all of these are just conjectures, but so far, hearing from fellow students, this is what I'm hearing.

Ok, so its not that irrelevant. The system that I'm thinking of requires instructors who are extremely dedicated to the students, who are willing to either, set aside their research projects, OR, include students in their research projects in very close collaboration.

Now, given that there might be students who might somehow have the grasp to handle many many things in one shot... This could be the probable syllabus:

First year will probably be... doing exposures and fundamentals across the major faculties - physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, history, literature, philosophy, writing, statistics, computing... and maybe into second year. Depending on the students, they then start to explore and do research modules on their own, working closely with professors, maybe more than 1 instructor, especially if their research module is across different disciplines. Mashups would be highly encouraged since thats where all the new things are!

The research programme then becomes the main focus from yrs 2 and 3. Their research projects ought to be large projects, consolidating the connections between different areas of knowledge, and go from 8MCs to say, 16MCs. So every sem they might just do 2 or 3 research projects, but the workload required would be rather, large... Whatever they need to learn for their research projects, be it the technical skills to handle the necessary machinery, or the techniques of fieldwork, or the mathematics of statistical analyses - whatever they need to learn will be picked up while on the research project. It sounds huge, and yes it is. If this is impossible, then this dream syllabus remains just a dream.

And then in their final year, they do a uber-thesis, a consolidation of all they have learnt during the years in university.

While majors will not exist, there will still exist clusters - some modules students could do in a certain track in order to attain a body of knowledge they can apply. While they might sit in regular lectures, attend laboratory sessions, they will not sit for their final exams, rather, they will just keep doing research projects.

This idea will definitely have limitations. But then, this concept of education would not apply to the hardcore, focused researchers anyway... And yes, it might even be impossible to implement ever, but well, it is nice dreaming about it...

Sphere: Related Content

hedgehogs vs foxes

Nicholas Kristof, in his column, wrote about Hedgehogs vs Foxes in American foreign policy... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/opinion/26Kristof.html

I love the idea of hedgehogs vs foxes - the idea that hedgehogs dig deep into single issues, are considered specialists while foxes are people who go from idea to idea, explore it long enough but not so deep, and back out again , venturing into other topics.

Kristof wrote about it in context to the issue of experts - how experts sometimes get things wrong because they become so single-minded that they fail to realise that the problems they study sometimes are complex creatures that require multiple angles to look at. Hence his writing that foxes ought to be better than hedgehogs.

I felt that such a simplistic dichotomy is fallacious. I mean, its difficult to classify hedgehogs and foxes in the first place, and there are still many problems out there in the world which requires specialists - years of experience in dealing with problems... there is still room in the world for specialised experts who have worked on specific fields for years, even decades.

But there are also obviously issues out there that are not specific, focused issues, and these issues tend to be the ones that plague our world right now, because specialists, by their simplification, might fail to understand the complexities, and by resorting to some simplifications might instead aggravate the situation. I can think of no specific examples, but again, there probably are many anecdotes about it.

Maybe foxes are prized today because of the large issues today - the credit crunch that led to the economic crisis, climate change, energy, sustainable development, poverty in africa, rural development - these are huge multifaced problems that require people who know how to work and coordinate across many disciplines, hence the jumping around that's required.

Alright then. But then I would actually highlight that hedgehogs are still required anyway - people who have been working on the ground, worked with tonnes of experience - these people are still required, and these are the people that education systems tend to produce. I guess now we see the importance of foxes because we realise that issues are too complex. Maybe the truth is, foxes and hedgehogs need to be in equilibrium in any kind of organisation. Too many hedgehogs and the big picture gets ignored, too many foxes and no actual implementation might be accomplished.

Meantime, our education is still going down the path of the hedgehog-centric style of education, with the emphasis of the major still important, if not utterly important. If we need foxes-type of people for the future economy, there really should be serious reconsiderations to the style of education that we give to our kids. Not everyone will be a hedgehog, and not everyone will be a fox. In the rarest of occasion, we might even see the rise of the hedgefox - people who have the capability to move across vastly different disciplines with equal ease. That will be utterly mindblowing.

Sphere: Related Content

a chasm to confess

There is something that I think I might have said it before in the blog, but I'm just going to say it again. There is this distance between generations, I think, even in my family. Its just this sense of apart-ness that its always there.

Education I guess, is a double-edged sword then. It empowers people with the skillsets necessary to thrive in the global economy, but then, as with the case of Singapore, it does not facilitate in the transmission of cultural artifacts/heritage, and instead, seems to tear people apart from them. Can you imagine Hokkien Opera being an CCA? Yet we allow our kids to sing Italian/Spanish/Japanese/Korean tunes! WTH!

THe cultural heritage of our parents and grandparents have been neglected, even debased, The cultural artifacts linked to our festive seasons ends up being promoted - the lion dancers, the lanterns, the mooncakes... for economic profit? drawing in the tourist dollar? As signs of a 'vibrant cultural city'? Something doesn't sync yet. Singapore still has an emerging theatrical culture, yet its being undermined in ways that are hidden. 2 steps forward 1 step back. Why can't we embrace our dialects? And why is Singlish not tolerated? Perhaps the fluidity of the Singaporean identity - the flexibility in moving from cosmopolitan to heartlander in a single larh - that is the wonder of the Singaporean.

And now that I'm here, I was reflecting about the predominant role of English as the medium of instruction, and the Singlish that young people speak. I talk about this because I've identified in another post that the main problem of Singapore's young people is that they are not immersed in the environment of speaking English, especially in the neighbourhoods. That there are structural problems that are preventing these kids from competing in the global talent marketplace, and that meritocracy, being the mindless efficient selector of talent, just disregards the place where people come from. Sometimes, it is really not that people are not hardworking enough - it really is about not even having the environment and the motivation around them that urges them to work hard. No one is stupid. Its about whether the people around them think they are stupid or not.

I think I've moved too far for one night.

Sphere: Related Content

future of Education

I wrote about the future of education before, about the future of knowledge and what it could mean for universities.

http://ed-leading-edge.blogspot.com/2008/07/future-of-knowledge.html

Here, I upon receiving some tweets from my dear friend Shaun, I'm going to map out how things might look like some few decades (maybe 2 or 3) about how the future of education might look like.

Given that there is already this major thing called independent learning going on, where students just go on their own path and learn new things themselves, the current system as it is, based strictly on syllabi and curricula feels rather anachronistic - students find their mental faculties constrained by such ideological boundaries. Yes, syllabus and curriculum still have their place in helping students organise knowledge, and a good syallabus should be a starting platform for students to explore on their own, but in a world where information and knowledge is *free*, what we need is the skills to enable students to manage the information on their own.

In other words, I propose that students be able to manage their own syllabus about what they want to learn, and how they want to learn. And bringing this to university, it means that students take lessons from whatever profs teach, but do not stick to modules, but rather combine ideas from different modules and come up with something synthetic - something that is relevant to themselves in their own context.

Yes, logistics will be a nightmare, and frankly, it will be impossible to introduce these kinds of systems. The module system still has its place, no doubt, but the influx of information and knowedge out there... that is going to pose quite a challenge to the current system anway.

The main problem, is of being constrained, that people feel trapped in what they are allowed to learn...

But I think that individual modules, independent learning, creation of individual syllabi - that seems to be how the future might look to be...

Then again, we could all have memory implants into our brain...

Sphere: Related Content

at the dinner table...

thoughts about the old world status quo and the birth pains of the new world.

Just as a starting thought, what if a dollar less on military spending today could actually mean 5 more bucks at the same rate in the future? What if the economic growth that results from investing more on education could actually result in more funds for the military in the future?

Investing in innovative, enriching, and empowering education would boost our economic growth so much, that it would result in more money to go around everywhere.

We should be thinking about an rearrangement of our government ministries, those that deal with strategic issues of people and development, and those about short-term acute-issues management. Short term 'tactical industries' would be defence, finance, manpower, interior affairs, trade and industry. Longer term 'strategic' ministries would be education, social, environment, community, development. With such a lensing or framework, it might change the way we look at budgeting. The more we spend on tactical ministries would mean less on strategic industries. This is obviously a dilemma that we face - how to balance short term needs with long term needs.

And I think we should be investing in disruptive asymmetrical military tactics. That means, more power projection capabilities. We might have less boots on the ground, but we'll leave one heck of a bootprint when we do. I think that should be our goal in mind. I think that conventional warfare as we think of it today, with armies and movements and tactics - that kind of conventional warfare is slowly changing, especially when even conventional warfare learns to fight like insurgents and guerillas.

Anyhow, on another note, every country is constantly racing against each other with regards to education and competitiveness. There is a new global construct that is being created. It's about the new forces of collaboration and cooperation vs the old forces of the status quo.

This new world would need more people in the basic sciences, and I'm looking at engineers who are working towards both innovative low-tech and high-tech solutions to the problems we face today, and to start thinking about creating and realising the possibilities of the future. The future is now, that better world is now. And we should start believing in it and in making it happen. Singapore has spent quite a lot of money already in the life sciences. Isn't it time we do a little bit of basic research in the other sciences as well? We need to move away from the money-oriented view when appropriating funds for research, and instead to think about the needs of the future. Our intermediate moves of IR and service orientation are but short-gap measures to the long term strategic problems that Singapore faces.

I'm thinking that Singapore is still stuck in the old world, and is only slowly trying to think of ways of how to get out of this old world. we have only just begun to explore the frontiers of this old world. I seriously think that we are not doing enough to empower students in this new age of creative work. This is a serious innovation gap with the future that we have to engage.

When I think about the more important trends going on in this world, I can only think in terms of the technological aspect - simply because it drives every other form of change in this world. And there are these two, that I think will shape the world in the decades to come. They are those of sustainability and collaborative, cooperative innovation. The future hereon will be one where everyone can create, and there'll be minimal barriers to stop people from creating. In fact, creating will probably be the only way to make a decent living in the future. And to do it in ways that'll be environmentally sustainable, and reduce our footprint. If Singapore can ride on these two things, I think it'll be largely set for another half-century.

If the young today are going to be the ones who will bear the consequences of the older generation, shouldn't they be the ones helming the dialogues, shouldn't the youth be the ones calling the shots on objectives and targets, instead of greying technocrats? Wouldn't it make more sense if the youths were the ones discussing the problems that they'll face? Its a weird weird world...

Sphere: Related Content

Lessons from running a camp at MGS primary

That the inequalities in Singapore are more complicated than I expected. Apparently, the divide between the elite schools and the non-elite schools are much deeper than I expected. I mean, I sort of already anticipated the kind of issues that I would come across, but I didn't realised the complexity that actually causes the inequalities. As it turns out, income inequality is only one kind of inequality that exists in Singapore.

The real factor that causes extreme elitism, or simply elitism of the worst kind was that, the culture between neighbourhood schools and elite schools ARE really different. And elite schools ARE really better, in terms of inculcating MORE POSITIVE values to the students, giving them self-belief and confidence, THINGS THAT ARE SORELY MISSING in neighbourhood schools other than the exceptions. What are also missing in neighbourhood schools are GOOD teachers who believe in students, and a POSITIVE culture for achievement, where students are more than another statistic, but are treated as whole persons.

It was an eye-opener handling those kids who are barely 10, 11, 12 years old. At their age, I feel like a DUNCE now. I think I BARELY made it to where I am today. There were too many opportunities for me to fall through the cracks. Already I can see why Tan Li Feng could be a president's scholar, because I am seeing people of her kind of assertiveness and dominance, focus and drive, things I barely recognised as important till late secondary/JC level.

So the main learning point is: HOW DO YOU NURTURE A CULTURE OF PERSON-CENTRED EXCELLENCE IN SINGAPORE EDUCATION, SO THEY CAN EXCEL FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES? How would it look like? What are the steps? What are the obstacles?

(On another note: It would take a different kind of NIE to produce a different kind of teacher who is more than just concerned about the big fat bonuses. Though it is an incentive, it is an incentive of a wrong type. )

And last of all, I think that LOVE IS THE REAL BUILDER OF COMMUNITIES.

Sphere: Related Content

education, inspiration and innovation

One of the things that has bothered me a lot in Singapore is our education. But before I go any further, I would like to say that even though our education is far from perfect, it actually is pretty good, having brought us to where we are today. Come to think of it, the criticisms that I'm making are actually applicable to the education system of many countries.

This is obvious, but for a start, there is a tension in most education system between the needs of the individual and the community. Its a resource allocation problem, I guess, that the education systems of all countries are such that resources are utilized to maximize the benefits to most kids - to use what the country has to improve the whole population of children rather than focus on a few bright sparks who might be einsteins. That's one the major tensions in most education systems.

In Singapore it's the same. The education system is such that it affords most people with the basic knowledge of the workings of the modern world. Unfortunately, Singapore now faces a potential 'Innovation Gap' with other countries. The strategic challenge that Singapore faces today is regarding innovation. It's about whether Singaporeans can innovate fast enough in the future, competing with people in the region, in Asia, in the world, as a whole.

The key to that question lies ultimately in our education system. Its about whether our education system can provide our future leaders with the skillsets required for the innovation race in the future and even today.

The recent changes made to our education system I hope, will be only a start. The changes in syllabus and curriculum are such that young people are educated of the various fields and since it is compulsory to study both the science and humanities, it will better equip our future leaders to deal with the complexities of the present and future.

I hope there will be more changes - changes that will better equip teachers as well for this innovation challenge. Without innovative teachers, all these talk about education inculcating innovation among our future leaders will be just that - talk. For the whole education system to work, it is obvious that we need innovative teachers as well.

In this post, I don't want to talk about just the syllabus, curriculum, teachers and students. The whole theme of this entry has been about innovation in education, about the 4 things mentioned above. But lately, I've realised that the education of innovation is not the school's responsibility alone. Ultimately, for innovation to thrive, you need people to begin the process of integrating innovation in their lives by themselves. The future leaders that I'm talking about - the kids still schooling today, they are going to come out of school and realise all of these things that they've missed about, about the world out there and all the synthesis that have been going on between different areas of knowledge, the connections that are being made, and the silent ongoing revolutions in technology, entertainment and design. And when they've realise just how much they've been missing out, they will ask themselves the same question, 'why didn't my education prepare me with all these?'

On the Internet, there are already amazing resources that can equip students with knowledge of all the latest happenings, about the going-ons at the forefront of innovation. An when they do find out about it, they will want to share with their friends, with their families. All we have here in Singapore are just pockets of people who are in the know about all these, and it's simply not enough. It has to begin somewhere, and I believe that it should happen in the schools. It should begin in the schools to tell kids about the existence of these things, and it should begin in the schools where they can share and discuss these things with their friends, and t should begin in the schools where they can explore some of these ideas... But for all these to happen, some tenets of our education here in Singapore will have to change.

Our education system is efficient. It is good at producing people who are prepared for the world of manufacturing and service industries. But as we are slowly finding out, it won't be enough in the present and future environment that will be innovation-centred. This is why ITEs are reinventing themselves, not just producing technically competent people, but people who are able to move up on the value ladder and begin to seriously innovate and produce new products or methodologies. And even our polys are rebranding themselves too, as potential hubs of innovation, and the same goes for our universities.

I think there is a need now to revise the way we look at our schools. Our schools are no longer factories producing cogs and gears for the giant machinery of our economy. We need to know look at our schools as Hubs of Innovation, not just as places where we teach thing and inculcate values and all.

Sphere: Related Content

Innovate, Innovate!

Statements like the following one have been made so many times that it seems cliched: that innovation is going to be the key to success in this century.

Innovation has to become part of the DNA of any society or country in order for that particular society or country to be economically successful in the long run. In order words, innovation has to be part of the education curriculum, so that every generation of children that has gone through schooling will be ready to innovate solutions...

I don't know how else to put it - innovation is something that can never be overemphasized, and the same regarding the urgency, right here in Singapore. Are we adapting fast enough? Are we nurturing innovation?

Which brings us to the entire issue of the patterns of innovation, the factors that nurture innovation and things like that. Are we adapting our society for innovation? I think these are some of the questions that are keeping policy-makers up at night. Well, at least I hope they bother to think of these things. Because I think that the challenge to innovate is one of the most important and urgent problems, and a long term one at that, that Singapore will have to face in order to become successful as a global city.

And innovation will be closely tied to our education, society and culture... how we adapt them for this century...

maybe we could adapt more Montessori philosophies into primary school education for a start...

Sphere: Related Content

the idea that i've been having about singapore...

I guess I never really revealed the bigger picture that I've been having for a long time in my head. I talk about environmental change, social change, education, Singapore, external challenges and all, but I've always done it in bit pieces - every topic in isolation, without regard for its context with respect to many other things. A few days ago I had this epiphany that it would be simpler for my life and others, if I'd just tell them what is exactly on my mind. So here it is:

I am afraid for Singapore.

Now why am I afraid? Simply because of India and China. Their growth will be THE story of our time, of the 21st century. But what will it mean for Singapore? It means a loss of relevance in the world, the loss of relevance to China and India. What happens, around 2050, when China and India become fully developed? What will happen to Singapore?

What's happening now.

Singapore is trying to position itself as a point of entry into China's markets. That is losing its point, because investors can just stream into China directly, bypassing Singapore totally. We are exporting public administration to Chinese government officials - but in time, they will establish their very own Zhu Rong Ji Institute of Public Policy, so even LKYSPP will lose its shine. We are using exporting our developing model for their industries and economy as a whole, but in time, they won't need it, when they're done learning our lessons. They will eventually find their own way, and we'll be left in the dust of their development.

The only hope then is that we would have moved on in our development.

But how?

The only way to do that is to INNOVATE, and I cannot emphasize itself. We need an education system and a society that encourages innovation, and does it by the truckload.

My friend, Shaun, and I agree, that Singapore is really good at being efficient and sometimes, adaptable. Because we are small, we can push through with projects faster than almost any other country. That is something we need to keep. Our education system is superb at churning efficient people - and that's a good thing too. We are very good at doing the things TODAY, but we suck seriously at innovating.

The main point is, we need visionaries - people who can see beyond today's situations and anticipate what lies ahead in the future, and create innovations for tomorrow - not just incremental changes, but something radical, even game changing, something disruptive, like the Internet, the wheel, the iPod, and more...

And more importantly, we need to link visionaries with the efficient people that we have today. We need to be fast at what we do, and at the same time, to be able to innovate something completely new. We need a society that can nurture visionaries and match them with the suitable efficient people to create innovations that will keep Singapore just that little bit ahead. If we start now, we will enjoy another say, 20 years of growth, before China and India match up with us again. Until then, what?

Thats for the next generation to think, and we have to prepare them for that moment. Meanwhile, we have challenges like sustainable growth, urban planning, and all... SIngapore needs to seriously innovate, and come up with sustainable models for future growth - how do we retrofit our buildings to become eco-friendly, cradle-to-cradle style...

and an idea that can help make the innovative, dynamic society into reality...

and an IDEA CAFE!!! now that would be great! a place where people could talk freely about their ideas, get together and discuss them, and maybe even come up with something...

forgot to add that the Ideas Cafe will be different, because when people are discussing, they will decide whether they want people to just come in and contribute to a discussion... and then hopefully, this will allow different people to meet each other and come up with immense synergy they can take to... whatever their dreams take them...???

then we can set up a community, where people can continue their discussions online and further develop their ideas into full-blown projects of potential social change - all these for changing the social landscape of singapore into something really more dynamic than what i have here.

It does not need a new cafe, any cafe today can implement these things if they want to...

Sphere: Related Content

ten years

I was looking at the young people in my neighbourhood today, and started talking to them for a very short while... and after that I went back home and I thought of something.

Ten years ago, people my age would have hardly the opportunities that I have today. I expect that ten years on, people my age would have opportunities I can hardly imagine today. So I think one of the challenges is, how do we prepare our young people for those opportunities that would otherwise blow our minds today?

Ten years on, we'll see even more innovations about the social-technosphere, and more opportunities for growth. Then... what will we do with our young people?

What kind of education will exist for them? How will the social landscape look like? How will the world have changed? Will the education catch up with the global transformations by then? Will our young people be ready for all these?

Sphere: Related Content

after watching too many ted videos...

My 'TED' wish, is to set up a TED community in NUS. This community will come together to share ideas, about the things they are passionate about, and it'll be held like every month or so at some lecture theatre there. This thing will be entirely voluntary, the most difficult thing is to publicise this thing.

Anyway, here's something else - its slightly bigger and many more times more ambitious. My second 'TED' wish is to transform Singapore into a leading edge global city that does not merely want to catch up to other cities, but carve a place for itself in the world. Get what I mean? Its going to be about technological literacy, getting more tech companies to set up centres here, not just for marketing, but for research and all.

Here are some ideas - consolidate our education system - education should be more dynamic, not only restricted to schools, and teachers should not be limited to the classroom. Give our teachers more space to do their work. Who joins the teaching profession to do things other than teach? Schools should be seen as a public good. We should revise our ranking systems - seems to commercialise schools. Ranking system has become counter-productive. Schools emphasize ranking over the education of their students - which sucks for our kids. What we need may only be some indicators of areas schools are good at.

If the children of a village in Peru can all have laptops, why can't we do the same? OLPC!

Implement the open-source learning for teachers (from TED).

We cannot just mouth words like 'innovation' and 'creative'. Watching TED videos have seriously revitalised my belief in the power of innovate and create. but in order to do either, we must first open up ourselves to possibilities. I believe Singapore can be a cutting edge city. Do others believe? The world will move faster and faster....

Sphere: Related Content