Rethinking the term “elitism”

Rethinking the term “elitism”

SINGAPORE - When Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek interviewed our then education minister Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, the latter made a tacit admission that the Singapore system has not been effective in producing world-beaters.

One puzzling fact was that Singapore churns out only few truly top-ranked scientists, entrepreneurs, inventors, business executives or academics despite being number 1 in the global math and science rankings for school children. It doesn’t come as a surprise that our students perform well in standardized tests since we have always been known to produce exam-smart students. It wouldn’t be that difficult for the latter to score top marks in their math and science exams.

Thus, Mr Shanmugaratnam had to concede that the Singapore system is an exam meritocracy, whilst the American one is a talent meritocracy, which saw the latter producing world-beaters in abundance. During the PAP Policy Forum at the beginning of 2006, he suggested a revamp of our education system that will see it move from an exam meritocracy towards a talent meritocracy.

Yet, this so-called exam meritocracy still remains the platform for the segregation of future “elites”, the wheat, from the chaff, us ordinary joes. Thus, academic “elites” who are top performers form the bedrock of our future ruling “elites”, as the latter are awarded scholarships and given the opportunity to reach top leadership positions within our administrative service.

Whilst Mr Shanmugaratnam deserves at least some credit for his honest assessment of our education system and suggestion for relevant changes, the pertinent question is whether the public would be willing to adopt a wholesome outlook of our students’ talents. Thus, now instead of academic “elites”, we have musical “elites” for our little Mozarts, soccer “elites” for our future Fandis and Sundramoorthies, artistic “elites” for our little Picassos and what not.

Yet, this so-called exam meritocracy still remains the platform for the segregation of future “elites”, the wheat, from the chaff, us ordinary joes. Thus, academic “elites” who are top performers form the bedrock of our future ruling “elites”, as the latter are awarded scholarships and given the opportunity to reach top leadership positions within our administrative service.”

I have always been skeptical of the exam meritocracy-government scholarship axis in identifying future high flyers. In short, I was never convinced that high academic standing would guarantee a successful career. The basis of my disagreement lies in a seminal study by Shulman and Bowen on the admission preferences given to student athletes by Ivy League and other selective universities, which they published in a book titled “Game of Life”.

What the study revealed was that student athletes presented significantly lower high school (pre-university) GPA and SAT scores than the rest of their peers. And they are usually ranked in the bottom tier of their classes during their time in university. In Singapore’s academic parlance, such student-athletes are considered average at best. However, they turn out to be high-fliers after they graduate, enjoying higher renumeration than their peers with higher academic standing.

Shulman and Bowen attributed their successes to their personality and psychological make-up. Conditioned by their previous sporting background, these former student athletes exhibit an unwavering determination towards achieving their goals, be it in closing a deal or successfully completing a project, which to them is like winning a game. They also have other qualities such as the willingness to work hard over a long period of time, and can seamlessly fit into a team-based setting. And Shulman made another apt observation that student-athletes see themselves as leaders and value leadership skills. Even after they graduate, they continued to provide leadership in civic activities.

I am hardly surprised at Shulman and Bowen’s findings. Sports can impart many important life lessons that cannot be picked up in the classroom, for instance the ability to face failure and adversity, and how to turn defeat into victory. Thus, the moral of the story? A good sportsman with an average academic ability definitely has the ingredients to be far more successful than a student with straight As on his academic transcript but with little or no background in sports.

Hopefully, the move towards a talent meritocracy will also see a shift in paradigm, which is a shift in focus away from purely academic achievements. Yet, there is this odd reminder now and then to everyone out there to pay deference to the elites in power, according to Mr George Yeo a long time ago, and I quote “remember your place in society and make distinctions what is high, what is low, what is above and what is below”.

As a matter of fact, I learnt an important core value imparted to me by my instructors when in military service, the same organization where Mr George Yeo holds the rank of Brigadier-General:”Rank is what you wear, respect is what you earn”. And any individuals who has proven his talents, at least in my eyes, deserves my respect. I have no problem respecting talented military men, politicians, musicians, sportsmen and what-not for that matter.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24924.1