Subsequent to the article about JPA scholarship, I wish to take this opportunity to examine another important element in the discourse - "top scorer".
The mere comparison based on examination result can be misleading.
First, are we assuming all students are given the equal opportunity in terms of number of papers? Although technically, students are allowed to attempt as many papers as possible, in SPM, nevertheless, we have to acknowledge that not all schools in Malaysia are capable to provide adequate "education" and support. Therefore, there might be an element of inequality creating further inequalities, whereby students in the less developed schools will have great difficulties to compete with those in better schools on a level playing ground.
Second, the core subject we are discussing is education. Is scoring more A's means the person is better educated or more intellectual? There seems to be a fundamental contradiction in equating what it meant to be educated and being a top scorer. With this strong emphasis on examination results, it will eventually drives Malaysian education system to become even more exam-oriented. Again, isn't this what our Education Minister is trying to change?
Third, relating to my previous article about the distinction of financial aid and scholarship, I wish to re-emphasise that if JPA scholarship is meant to be a "scholarship", then what concerns this debate is developing the best brains for civil service. However, do we really need all the top scorers to be civil servant? If the answer is no, then JPA scholarship needs to further tighten the regulation to ensure all the scholars ultimately return to serve in the civil service, and at the same time, only provide the scholarship for those with great potentials to be capable civil servant. Hence, being a top scorer is just an additional plus-point to the application, and not the criteria.
Fourth, if JPA scholarship is playing the role of financial aid, then, the award needs to seriously re-consider providing a greater weightage to the financial needs of the applicants according to their needs. Again, being a top scorer is just an additional bonus, not a definite criteria.
Fifth, taking into consideration that JPA scholarship awards according to disciplines, such as medicine, engineering, law etc., therefore, the evaluation on the academic results need to be more refined. The definition of top scorer should be not used as the overall indicator, but more importantly, the academic performance of the related subjects to the disciplines of the scholarship. For example, if an applicant scores 10A's in pure sciences but applies for law, then it certainly does not make sense to award the JPA scholarship to this applicant. Therefore, evaluating specific subjects performance is a more practical and sensible way to determine the awarding of the scholarship; if examination results remain the most important measurement.
In conclusion, before continuing this discourse about scholarship, it is essential to take a moment and ponder upon the very crucial question, "How to define a top scorer?"
How do we define a top scorer?
Is Student X with 17A's smarter or cleverer than Student Y who scored 9A's?
Is Student X with 17A's smarter or cleverer than Student Y who scored 9A's?
The mere comparison based on examination result can be misleading.
First, are we assuming all students are given the equal opportunity in terms of number of papers? Although technically, students are allowed to attempt as many papers as possible, in SPM, nevertheless, we have to acknowledge that not all schools in Malaysia are capable to provide adequate "education" and support. Therefore, there might be an element of inequality creating further inequalities, whereby students in the less developed schools will have great difficulties to compete with those in better schools on a level playing ground.
Second, the core subject we are discussing is education. Is scoring more A's means the person is better educated or more intellectual? There seems to be a fundamental contradiction in equating what it meant to be educated and being a top scorer. With this strong emphasis on examination results, it will eventually drives Malaysian education system to become even more exam-oriented. Again, isn't this what our Education Minister is trying to change?
Third, relating to my previous article about the distinction of financial aid and scholarship, I wish to re-emphasise that if JPA scholarship is meant to be a "scholarship", then what concerns this debate is developing the best brains for civil service. However, do we really need all the top scorers to be civil servant? If the answer is no, then JPA scholarship needs to further tighten the regulation to ensure all the scholars ultimately return to serve in the civil service, and at the same time, only provide the scholarship for those with great potentials to be capable civil servant. Hence, being a top scorer is just an additional plus-point to the application, and not the criteria.
Fourth, if JPA scholarship is playing the role of financial aid, then, the award needs to seriously re-consider providing a greater weightage to the financial needs of the applicants according to their needs. Again, being a top scorer is just an additional bonus, not a definite criteria.
Fifth, taking into consideration that JPA scholarship awards according to disciplines, such as medicine, engineering, law etc., therefore, the evaluation on the academic results need to be more refined. The definition of top scorer should be not used as the overall indicator, but more importantly, the academic performance of the related subjects to the disciplines of the scholarship. For example, if an applicant scores 10A's in pure sciences but applies for law, then it certainly does not make sense to award the JPA scholarship to this applicant. Therefore, evaluating specific subjects performance is a more practical and sensible way to determine the awarding of the scholarship; if examination results remain the most important measurement.
In conclusion, before continuing this discourse about scholarship, it is essential to take a moment and ponder upon the very crucial question, "How to define a top scorer?"
2 comments:
Helen Ang has quite a good piece here:
http://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/104781
I'm trying to work out a piece on this myself, linking it more to wider developmental goals in m'sia.
Thanks for pointing out the article on Malaysiakini. There again, this article touches on so many related issues, which reflect the complication associated in the discourse. Without proper unpicking of each of these issues, the debate about JPA scholarship will be never-ending.
I guess the way forward is to revisit the important and fundamental questions about the scholarship, purely from perspectives of:
(i) education,
(ii) social equality, and
(iii) national interest
Post a Comment