A tale of two countries: Malaysian GE and Singapore education

Blackout!

If you log onto Facebook one day after the release of the results for the General Election in Malaysia, you may notice many of your Malaysian friends have changed their profile pictures to a square of blankness. This move, inspired by the leaders of opposition party PakatanRakyat, who lost the general election, was a display of the anger over the alleged vote manipulation by the ruling party Barisan Nasional. This election was touted was a watershed election, with a change of government at stake. However, the “Ubah” championed by Anwar never came true and the status quo remained, together with a series of discriminatory policies that caused widespread dissatisfaction among the minority groups in Malaysia.

Educational discrimination

One of the major causes of dissatisfaction lies with the discriminatory policy in education, where the Malays are given preferential consideration in admissions into institutions such as public universities. A Chinese Malaysian student has to score much higher to stand a chance to get into the same university as a Malay Malaysian student; even such a chance is not guaranteed, subject to the size of quota. Such an education policy, brought into prominence by the general election, has much implication for the future of Malaysia and its neighbor, Singapore.

An unjustified rationale

The rationale for the preferential treatment of the Malays is the need for affirmative action. Because a substantial portion of the Malays in the past did not receive good education, they lost out to other races, particularly the Chinese, in areas such as business or other professional jobs that led one to higher income and social status. To correct the wrongs of the past and to put the Malays on an equal footing with their counterparts, the government lowered the admissions standard for the Malay students, hoping that the new generations of the Malays could improve their education level and social standing collectively.

Granted the good intention of the government to ease racial inequality, the affirmative action in Malaysia is not being done in an acceptable way. In the United States where affirmative action originated, the use of quota is explicitly forbidden by law. Race is a factor taken into admissions consideration, but it is never the factor that largely determines outcomes. In Malaysia, implicit or explicit quotas exist for university admissions, leading to a wide gap between the admission cut off scores for the Chinese and the Malays, a gap that cannot be explained by affirmative action in its proper practice alone. 'Reverse discrimination' must be used to explain the situation, where by trying to help one group, the government disadvantages another group as a result. Reverse discrimination, an often unintended outcome of affirmative action, is being intentionally used by the ruling party in Malaysia because of the need to gather votes from the Malays who benefit from current policy.

The impacts on Singapore

Considering the official discrimination, it is not surprising to see many Malaysian Chinese coming to Singapore for education. Many of the students are talented, ambitious and hardworking. By driving away a significant portion of its young talents, Malaysia suffers from brain drain. The universities are not benefitting from an otherwise more vibrant and more competitive academic culture. The majority of university students, who know that their places are protected by the government, may not work hard enough in their pre-U institutions, leading to a less competitive schooling population in general. Moreover, many of the Malaysians studying overseas do not wish to go back, where discrimination in employment, particularly in civil service, is but a continuation of discrimination in education. Because of the entrenched racial discrimination and the disappointment created by the unfair election results, Malaysian students are likely to continue to flow to Singapore to study where their talents and abilities are recognized and rewarded.

The lessons for Singapore

Lastly, the education policy in Malaysia has lessons for Singapore to learn as well. We have three reasons for our confidence in educational equality in Singapore. Firstly no ethnic group is significantly disadvantaged in the past, so there is no sufficient justification for affirmative action. Secondly Singapore is a nation built on racial equity in various aspects, and the government and the general society recognize the critical importance of fairness that motivates citizens to work hard so as to unleash the potential of human resources that are considered the only “natural resources” in the tiny city-state. Lastly, the Malaysia experience in education has demonstration effect for Singapore, as it shows how divisive unfair racial policy can become. Such racial division will be amplified during the general election where people use their votes to express their dissatisfaction. Because of the three reasons above, students studying in Singapore have little to worry about educational inequality. Quite on the contrary, the Malaysian example serves as a lasting reminder to the Singapore government not to let its education go astray along a similar line. Hence, students can rest assured that they will be treated equally in a meritocratic system where race is not a factor of admission, despite living in a multi-ethnic society. 

The attraction of Singapore's education lies with its fairness. The government appeals to all segments of society for political support.  Financial assistanceand bursary are given to needy students, based on household not on race. While Singapore should not interfere with the domestic affairs of Malaysia, it should always remember the critical importance of meritocracy, which is an open secret behind the Asian Tiger’s success story. 

The educational roots of Adam Khoo, Singapore's top success coach

Adam Khoo is undisputedly one of the most successful person in Singapore under the age of 40. In fact, he is most well known for making his first million by the age of 26, which is not too long after graduation from university. No doubt, in the eyes of many, he is leading a terrific life which we can only envy. We were therefore most curious to find out what he did differently that sets him apart from the mainstream.





Unlike most of the successful people we read about, Adam Khoo’s story is one which we can better relate to. He went to a neighborhood secondary school, followed by a decent Junior college and finally a local university. It resembles the educational track of the average joe on the street. Just like most Singaporeans, he worked hard in school and scored good grades, but the difference being that he did not get a good job. He created his own job.



He was in fact engaging in many ‘extra-curricular activities’ in school when most of us were just fixated on nailing our exams. He was taking on training assignments and running his own companies while schooling full time in Singapore’s most competitive university, NUS. It is no wonder that he achieved the much-coveted million dollar dream shortly after graduation. But what got us intrigued was the psychology of this young achiever at a tender age.



At 15, he started his own business and mapped out a life plan of earning his millions. Most people at that age would probably be having fun, chasing girls and asking money from parents. Here he was, dreaming of achievements beyond what his parents has accomplished. Then again, the next question one would ask: how does he acquire the ‘adult-like’ mindset at that age ? Wouldn’t it be great if all our teenage kids think the same way too instead of seeking pleasure all the time ?



We found out that he attended a life-changing camp at the age of 13 which empowered him with the mentality and skills of a successful person. It is known as the ‘SuperTeens’ Camp.


We then set out to explore the marvels of this program by signing out for their preview workshop. We had the pleasure of seeing in person the mentor of young Adam khoo, Dr Ernest Wong who gave the presentation that day. He shared the syllabus of his 5days 4 nights landmark SuperTeens program which includes imparting kids with exams skills, personal skills as well as social skills.



Listening further, we were astonished to find out that ‘goal setting’ and ‘finding your dream’ was also covered in the curriculum. Those are actually stuff we learn in a self-development seminar or book typically engaged in by an adult. It is therefore amazing to learn that young people are being taught all these life skills which will be most beneficial throughout their entire life. What is most unbelievable was how they deliver this information in a way that is understandable by teenage kids, or even making it interesting for those kids to want to listen to it is a remarkable feat. Many of the young graduates of this program are even now coaches and trainers with the company and were present during the session itself. Dr Ernest also went on to share that the graduates continue to do well in their careers.




It seems that such a program does complement our formal education system by making up for what is not being directly taught in school. Perhaps this is the direction that our education system should move towards. Fruit for thought.

Education system and the Death Valley

A TED Speech on Education


Sir Ken Robinson, the educational legend on TED, made a popular speech named The Educational Death Valley. In his humorous speech, he spelled out three conditions under which humans, and more specifically children, can flourish. Firstly, humans must be allowed to develop in diversity, not conformity. Secondly, humans learn the best when they are curious. Thirdly, humans are inherently creative and are capable of individual expressions. Then he went on to explain why the current American education system is not conducive for the three conditions to exist. Too much focus on standardized test 'standardizes' children, teaching without inciting curiosity is not educating, and the overall schooling atmosphere also does not encourage creativity from children. Borrowing example from Finland, he advocated individualized teaching and decentralization of curriculum designing.


His speech has much to offer for the Singapore education system as well. Though our education system may not be as problematic as that of America that suffers from insufficient funding and high dropout rate, we definitely have a long way to go before we satisfy our parents who have voiced out a series of concerns in education forums in Singapore. The way to move forward can be guided by Robinson three conditions for human development.


Diversity, not conformity


First, we need to recognize that students are diverse and different. As Robinson argues, not even children from the same family are alike, not to mention children from families across the nation. If students are different, we need to provide opportunities for them to develop differently and let their differences be seen and be appreciated. The Singapore education system certainly provides such channels. The Humanities Programs that enable students to develop differently from the more popular science stream. The Direct School Admissions scheme recognizes students based on their non-academic talents. However, the problem is that those channels do not reach out to sufficiently large number of students. Various schemes, such as the ones mentioned above, are (highly) exclusive, allowing only students who are cream of the crop in certain areas to benefit. We do not wish to make them into so-called 'gifted programs' for special students. We want them to appeal to common students who are different not because they are experts in certain talents, but because they have different interests, hobbies or 'ways of spending their time'. Hence, the present system needs to focus more on diversity than prestige. When one day alternative programs become the norm, our education system is truly diverse.




Curiosity, our natural ability

Second, we need to recognize that children are innately curious. They like to ask questions and they want to know why. Our system does not do a particularly good job in maintaining, not to mention arousing, the curiosity of students. One major reason is heavy emphasis on standardized test as early as in primary schools. The imminence of the PSLE is constantly at the back of students' mind. Hence each lesson may become preparation for exams. Students may be satisfied with having standard answers from tutors. That can be seen from students furiously copying answers written by tutors on the boards without asking a single question. Memorization-regurgitation approach is even adopted in learning sciences, where logical thinking is essential. With such an educational environment, it is not surprising to see students losing their curiosity as they grow in knowledge. However, how can one create new knowledge without a sense of wonder and an intuitive understanding that is a fertile ground for so many university research projects or private R&D effort? If Singapore wants to develop its original talents in various areas, it must maintain the curiosity of students.


Let creative juices flow

Lastly, we need to recognize that students are inherently creative. The small size of our nation is not an excuse for lack of creative people. In fact, many small countries in Europe are actually powerhouses of creativity, contributing an amazing array of artistic output. The problem with Singapore's arts scene is multi-prone. First, Singapore's education has a heavier emphasis on sciences. Chemistry and math are much more popular programs than humanities. In fact, some schools have closed down their English literature course due to low intake. Second, we certainly have arts programs, but they are more of enrichment than of serious pursuit. For many Asian parents, studying engineering or business is still the safest way to earn a living, while arts can be pursued as a personal hobby. Many students give in to such parental wishes at the juncture of applying for university. Third, the general population is also not enthusiastic about arts, as seen from the under-utilization of museums that are more like tourist spots. This leads to a small market for professional artists. Hence, to improve the arts scene, the government needs to provide more funding to arts programs, more scholarship to talented students and create more arts related jobs to expand the market. General education of arts, such as arts festivals, can also be conducted at the community level, so that the works of our artists can be brought closer to Singaporeans.





For Robinson, no matter how stifled an education system is, the potential of students is always there. Even if the system is like the Death Valley, life can still emerge and flourish once appropriate amount of rain falls on it. The Singapore education system is by no means like the Death Valley, and our criticism of the system is more for improving it for perfection instead of salvaging it from hopeless ruin. Singapore has been consistently ranked one of the top destinations for education, and we need to live up to the reputation. While so many countries are trying to upgrade or reform their education systems, we should not sit on our laureate. Robinson’s speech is a timely reminder of what we are falling short of.







Check out the Tedtalk below!

National University of Singapore's increased rankings

In the future, when Singaporeans are introducing their nation to tourists, they may have one more place to recommend as a must-visit: it is the National University of Singapore (NUS). The tertiary education provider has been rapidly climbing the global education ladder, with the most recent evaluation done by the Times Higher Education (THE) placing it at the 29^th in global university ranking. The recent releasing of Asian University Ranking, much to the pride of the nation, places NUS at the second position, after Tokyo University in Japan. It is definitely something Singapore should celebrate, as it is an indication that the nation has done well in education sector and is well under its way in making the tiny country a hub for education in the region. However, at the end of the day, cool-headed analysis of the implications of the global ranking may serve the university and the nation better than mere words of praises.

First, it is without doubt that the consistently high ranking of NUS in the global education scene is a strong testimonial of the strength of the institution. The rapid development of the university can even be seen from casual observation without the in-depth evaluation by THE. In terms of research, the NUS medical school has forged alliance with the Duke Medical School, one of the best in the United States. The joint program encourages collaboration in research as well as student exchange.

 In terms of student development, the University Scholars Program and the U-town residential system have added much diversity into students’ academic life, ushering in western education style in a liberal arts environment. Therefore, it is not surprising to see the ranking of NUS rise fast, along with its reputation in Singapore and the world, a reputation that is critical to attract the best students and professors, whose influx contributes to a virtuous cycle of the institution’s development.

However, there are potential downsides to the obsession with ranking by university and the general society as a whole. The present methodology in evaluating university is far from perfect and often open to criticism. Weight given to different areas, no matter how carefully considered, is essentially arbitrary. One big area of controversy lies with the balance between research and teaching. A professor has to devote time in teaching undergraduates and doing research for publications. The former is taken as the primary aim of building a university while the latter is often taken as a stronger criterion when evaluating the standing of a university.

If too much focus is on how many quality papers a university has published in the first-tier international journals, for example, such an evaluation bias will be translated into pressure for professors to publish. Some universities, like Hong Kong University, have even placed a minimum quota on the number of papers to be published everything. Even in the absence of an explicit quota, as in the case of NUS, implicit pressure of linking publication to tenure review is enough to nail the idea of “publish or perish” in the heads of academicians. The cost of putting more time in research is usually less time or attention spent on undergraduate teaching. This is often observed in lack of enthusiasm from lecturers or low availability of tutors who seem always busy. At the end of the day, what does society stand to gain if higher university ranking mainly reflects higher quality research that is largely irrelevant to students?

Moreover, some important aspects of higher education may be underrepresented in evaluation of universities. Despite the high ranking of NUS, one issue remains unresolved by the institution: academic freedom or autonomy. University as a concept represents freedom of thinking and expression that are engine of intellectual progress of society. However, NUS and many other Asian universities embarrassingly do not get high credit for that aspect. In fact, NUS president, Professor Tan Chorh Chuan said after the release of ranking that NUS continued progress is a result of consistent support from the Singapore government. 

This is already an indication of the close tie between NUS and the government. In fact, most of the university funding comes from the government. The compromise in academic autonomy is best seen in the political science department of NUS that has come under scrutiny for its apparent lack of critical voices. The department has been described as “docile”, unwilling to assert itself as an independent voice in the political discussion. In contrast, majority of the reputable universities overseas are private and they enjoy much greater freedom of intellectual inquiry that ultimately benefits the whole society. In fact, the establishment of Yale-NUS Liberal Arts College a few years back caused much dissatisfaction over the move from the Yale community that considers the Singapore political environment as not conducive for liberal arts education. It is suffice to say that besides improving university ranking, the institution also needs to fulfill its social expectation by finding a fine line between receiving government funding and remaining politically neutral.

As can see things, there are many more challenges for NUS to surmount in the future. The great institution of Singapore definitely should not rest on its laureate. But rather, it should rely on more criteria besides the global ranking in assessing its performance. Probably before it makes THE happy , it should please Singapore students, social observers and educators first,  who are the true stakeholders of the education of the nation.

Different Types of Tuition in Singapore

It seems that tuition is becoming more prevalent in Singapore. Recent research indicates that over 95% of Singaporean students have some sort of tuition throughout a typical school year. Tuition can not only help a student who is struggling to get over the hump and finally learn a subject that has challenged them, but it can also help with other aspects of learning such as the testing process. Some students may know the material, but just do not test well. Tuition by a proper tutor can help improve overall test scores as well as curriculum knowledge.

There are three main type of tuitions: One on One (or Individual), Group, and Consultation. Here are some specific details about each of these along with the pros and cons of them. 

One on One - Individual

This is arguably the most effective form of tuition. It is also the most expensive since it is usually based on an hourly rate. The rate will differ depending on if you select a part-time tutor, a full-time tutor, a teacher tutor, or a student tutor. Part-time tutors are typically professionals who may have other jobs that they do for their full-time income. Thus they may only be available for tutoring on nights or weekends. A full-time tutor chooses to tutor as their full-time employment, therefore they will likely have more flexibility in the days and hours they are available. A teacher tutor is a wonderful option as they are already experienced in teaching and likely know the curriculum and material very well. But since they are full-time teachers, they may also only be available during limited hours for tutoring. Student tutors may not be professionals, however if they are headed towards a career in education they may be very well versed already in the effective art of tutoring. Additionally they will be closer in age to the student and thus will be able to share in rapport and understanding of what the student may be feeling related to the whole learning process. Any option is a good one, as long as they are a good fit for your student and they are successful in helping them learn the material. 

One on one tuition will only be effective if either the student is participatory, meaning they ask questions and engage in dialogue to enhance their learning; or if the tutor themselves is an expert in tutoring and has an established skill-set that is capable of reaching the struggling student and get them to participate in the learning process. One on One tuition usually occurs in the student’s home. It is especially helpful for a student who feels completely lost in school, or those who have trouble learning in social environments. One negative aspect, besides the high price tag, is that while the student is actually working on their homework or lessons the tutor is sitting idly, costing the parents more in terms of hourly pay for the tutor. There are arguments amongst some students on whether or not individual tuition is beneficial, but research shows that test scores go up exponentially when a student is really struggling in a particular subject and gets one on one tuition.

Group

Group tuition is typically done in learning centres. Several students are grouped together by subject, level, and stream. Class size can range from 8 all the way up to 60. Be aware of the questions to ask a learning centre before entering into a tuition agreement. Ask about class size, how students will be grouped, and their success rate and any guarantees.

Some parents may fear that a group setting won’t give the student enough support in their tutoring. However, if the student is not completely lost in the subject, and just needs some help to better understand the material, a group setting is an ideal way to motivate the student by providing competition amongst peers. It is important to know your child and determine what setting is best for them to excel in. If the tutor in the group setting is a dynamic, inspiring presenter then the student will likely greatly benefit from the experience. If the tutor is lackluster, then the student may feel like they are once again failing at even tutoring and it can create a downward spiral that is not at all related to the student’s abilities to perform. Choose a group setting or learning centre carefully by checking references and testimonials.

Individual Consultation

Consultation tuition occurs in the tutor’s home. The group size is usually less than five students. The tutor will give each student one on one coaching while the others work on their homework or tutoring exercises. One benefit is that the student only spends time working on specific classwork that they need assistance with and the lecture scene typically found in group sessions is not present. Another benefit is that the student will have time to work on their coursework and have to think through the problems before they will have their time with the tutor to ask questions. This may help them solve problems on their own. However, if the student won’t ask questions or is so completely lost in the course then they may need the help of a one on one tutor.

Tuition has been shown to help students improve up to 3 grades in a period of 3-6 months. If you find that this is not the case then you have likely chosen the wrong format for your child’s specific needs. Looking into one of the other tuition methods listed above can help remedy the situation and both you and your student will feel the relief of things starting to come together. If you are exploring a tutor for your student, ask friends or use a tuition agency. Typically the cost of engaging a tuition agency is taken from the tutor’s first month’s tuition fee, thereby not costing you anything to find a suitable tutor program.

Education Recalibration

The recent speech by the Minister of Education Mr Heng Swee Keat goes deeper than the usual arguments about the pros and cons of present education system. One key word that he emphasized in his speech is “fundamental”. We need to go back to the fundamentals of education. An education system does the best when it best fulfills its fundamental missions. Each society has common expectations and values shared by all members of the community. To ensure the continuity of those fundamental spirits, education of the young generation becomes an indispensable tool. Hence we can better evaluate the Singapore education system in light of the fundamentals as a more effective approach of analysis.

First, the society values fairness. In addition to human inherent sense of fairness, Singaporeans appreciate the critical function of fairness in running a racially-diverse society or maximizing the use of talented people in a small population¹. Hence, it suffices to say the idea of fairness has been nailed into the head of Singaporeans. Such an idea is also reflected in Singapore’s education system. Despite the calling for abolishing exams, particularly the PSLE, such a possibility remains distant. Even the minister of education does not endorse the move, as seen in his description of how some countries that used to abolish exams are returning to exam-based systems². Exams, as stressful as they are, set objective standard of comparison. A score of 90 is better than a score of 89. Though it is arguable how much difference does that one mark really makes, the score-based evaluation based on standardized exams has proven to be more reliable and fair than any other alternative: the interview-based assessment, the talent-based assessment where subjective evaluation is involved. The score given to a dance performance by a student applicant is essentially arbitrary, and varies across different assessors, who may themselves be influenced by their own idea of excellence, their experiences and even their “mood” on the day of assessment. Hence, exam scores carry much more weight of authority that appeals to people’s sense of fairness. Hence, it may not be wise to argue for abolishing exams when such a proposal infringes one of the fundamental values people hold dear to.

Secondly, the skills and values taught in school reflect the social demand for such qualities among students. The schools are generally responsive to social demands due to competition in attracting the best students. The students with the right set of qualities the society wants are more likely to succeed after they graduate. Graduating a successful batch of students enhances the reputation of schools that can attract students with better branding. Hence, the school will aim to equip students with the socially desirable skills and values. The Anglo-Chinese School (Independent), with its unique IB syllabus that emphasizes breath and independent research, is attracting top secondary school students³. The Singapore Management University, because of its unique seminar teaching style and extensive presentation training, makes its graduates highly marketable⁴. Some critics worry about the value education and skill impartation that are compromised by a strong emphasis on exams. However due to competition among schools for diversity and branding, the future of education scene may not be as bleak as some may predict. Schools know that just by producing high scorers will not make their graduates go far, and that will be reflected in testimonials like the graduate employment survey⁵ that parents and prospective students closely examine every year. Hence what the government should do may not be dictating value education from a top-down approach, but rather encourage the diversity and competition among schools while enhancing a series of graduate surveys and research to enhance the information flow, which ultimately incentivizes schools to respond to what society really needs.

Lastly, the undesirable aspects of education may well be reflections of values of general society. As being pointed out by the minister of education, the definition of success in education cannot be changed if the definition of success in society is not changed. If society places a premium on five C (Cash, Condominium, Cars, Credit Card, and Country Club), students, teachers and parents are likely to place a premium on things that are going to lead to the possession of five C in the future. Grades, which determine the branding of school one is entering or the streaming one is placed in, of course become the Holy Grail that people go after. Hence to try to criticize about the over-emphasis on grades while not recognizing the underlying social mentality is to exercise double-standard. If one wants to reduce exam stress and obsession with results, he has to start from society. And some people are actually doing that. For example, the Think Family campaign is good social movement in getting people to value love and togetherness more than materialistic gain. While measures can definitely be taken to reduce exam stress, such as the non-disclosure policy of top scores of PSLE candidates, the fundamental problem lies with society at large. Education is a reflection of social attitude, which we have to take into account to give a fair verdict of the performance of education sector in Singapore.

The speech by the Minister offers fresh perspective on thinking about education. We need to put the issue in a large social context and realize that no policy can be suitably recommended without recognizing the influence of society on education. As problems of education are reflections of problems in society, we need to bear in mind what educators are capable of and give them fair credit that we often forget in the mist of emotional criticism of education.

References:

1.       http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2000/sp24112000_print.htm

2.       http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202055/Tories-We-bring-O-level-boost-exam-standards.html

3.       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Baccalaureate_Diploma_Programme

4.       http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=181

5.       http://moe.gov.sg/education/post-secondary/files/ges-nus.pdf

The author is a private educator in Singapore , doing private tuition at www.frankltuition.sg 

Exam Results Oriented Society

Pros and Cons of Exam Result Oriented Teaching

Exam result oriented teaching is basically a concept whereby the instructor knows the exam contents very well and leads the class through the coursework, all the while keeping his/her eye on the fact that the only goal is to help the student achieve high marks on the exam itself – irrespective of the syllabus contents.

There can be many arguments both for and against this method of teaching. The instructor will need to know which topics should be weighted more or less than others and then lead the students down a very carefully constructed path of precise education – with one goal – high exam results.

While there is no arguing that this teaching method achieves the goal of making sure that the vast majority of students will score well on the exams, one must ask again – is this the proper way to educate our children?

In actuality, the system that incorporates an exam result oriented method of teaching is creating a false environment of ‘easy testing.’ This could cause a student who transfers out of this school and into one where a more traditional philosophy is taught to fail miserably because there is no longer a very clear and concise understanding of exactly what to expect when it comes time for exams. In parallel, when a student graduates from high school and enters college, if they happen to attend a college, or a class, where exam result oriented teaching is not the normal practice, they will find it invariably more difficult to succeed in that testing environment. Yet still, besides immersing in an exams-oriented schooling environment, students can implement strategies to do well in examinations.

Exam result oriented teaching creates a false sense of security and confidence in life itself. A student who has gone through an exam result oriented education does not know how to rebound when they have a misstep on an exam; nor do they know how to study hard for the ‘unknown’ of not being able to say with certainty that they already know all of the answers to all of the questions in life to all of the questions that will be on the exam.

While the pros are heavily weighted in the good for the school; for retention of critical funding and for the overall ease of a cookie-cutter curriculum that becomes stale and repeatable, the cons are much more ominous for our children who are not learning the invaluable skill of how to learn on their own, or how to study hard for something they want or need to attain.

When these youth enter the workforce and the real world they may find that the utopia they are used to, this overall sense of entitlement brings with it a harsh realization that life is not fair. That life is not easy. And unfortunately, that they are ill-prepared. This can cause depression, confusion, and despair. This could cause an otherwise average individual to perform sub-par in their careers, and thus create a lifelong path of underachieving; simply because they were not taught during their formative years how to work hard to get what they want, instead of having everything basically handed to them.

However, it is also possible that the confidence that was instilled by a somewhat “easy” education process will serve to give a young adult the confidence to succeed in tougher situations. When presented with an unknown variable, they will feel confident that they can tackle it with finesse and ease, because - after all - they’ve always been able to do so. Therefore, when they enter the workforce and society as an adult, they are a go-getter, because they know they can succeed. It’s been a proven fact of their entire life up to adulthood that they carry with them throughout every challenge they face in life.

The jury may be out on the real impact to society of exam result oriented teaching, but it is clear that we are teaching our children a lesson – whether it is a positive lesson or a negative lesson may not yet be clear.