You are currently browsing the monthly archive for April 2011.
In today’s Straits Times forum page, there was this letter about how the opposition’s scholar candidates are a worry.
Opposition’s scholar candidates a worry
AS AN older citizen, I am uncomfortable about the presence of former government scholarship holders in the opposition.
To me, it seems as if they are abandoning their parents who paid for their excellent education.
Yes, one could argue that these candidates were in fact supported by taxpayers and will now serve all Singaporeans, and not only the People’s Action Party. But, are they really sincere about helping Singapore achieve a better society by joining the opposition?
Can they effectively check the Government or will they create more fighting or quarrelling like the parliamentary sessions in Taiwan?
Aren’t there enough ways of giving feedback to the Government? I can contact my Members of Parliament any time; I don’t even have to make an appointment and can e-mail them when I need help.
It takes time to know these scholar opposition candidates and I wonder if I should risk the four to five years it will take to know such a candidate’s ability, and compromise national progress.
A better answer for me is not to vote them in for this General Election and see if they continue contributing.
I would even apply my answer to the Workers’ Party’s star candidate, Mr Chen Show Mao. I would like to see if he really relocates his family to Singapore, as he has told the press he would, if he fails to win the election.
A candidate like Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim is too academic for an average voter like me. She makes good speeches but rarely champions a voter’s bread-and-butter needs.
A good MP to me must not only act as a check on the Government, but also serve the ground and offer effective solutions to the Government.
I would prefer a few good opposition MPs than many who are merely interested in the glamour of being in the opposition in Parliament.
Ho Lei Gi (Madam)
The first assumption made is that a government scholar is the same as a ruling party scholar. This is not the case. Contrary to popular misconception (and a rather reasonable misconception in Singapore), there is a dichotomy between the government (which includes its opposition MPs) and the ruling party that forms the majority of the government. Simply put, a PSC scholar is not a PAP scholar. The funding is from the Public Service Commission and not any political party. A government scholar is hence not beholden to any specific political party. Otherwise, by your logic, they will then also have the obligation to vote for the incumbent. The central argument is stupid, therefore wrong.
Apart from the eye-catching headline-making point, several other points are made as well — but they’re rather self defeating in that they don’t only apply to these new opposition scholars. They apply to many other non-opposition members.
Self defeating argument 1: There are enough ways to feedback to the government, hence there is no need for opposition members. Let’s not even question the efficacy of these avenues — but by her logic that feedback channels are already sufficient, there is no reason for people to join politics, regardless of whether it is the incumbent or the opposition. Clearly, joining parliament is more than just about feedback. It’s about playing a direct role in influencing policy and bridging the rulers and the ruled. It is ludicruous to compare actually being a member of parliament with SENDING AN EMAIL TO ONE.
Self-defeating argument 2: These scholar candidates are new, and therefore should not be voted in. Let’s not even question whether experience and youth matters — this argument is self-defeating because it applies to the new members of the ruling party as well. By her logic, we should never ever ever vote in any new members of parliament. Keep the members of parliament the same year in and year out — because that is the most stable.
Self-defeating argument 3: We should not vote for the opposition, and see if they continue contributing. Let’s not even question how many opposition members do in fact continue their work even when not voted in. But this point fails to take into account that it also applies to members of the ruling party — would they still contribute otherwise?
Self-defeating argument 4: We should not vote in people who join because of the glamour.The questionably glaring flaw here is that there is generally more stigma than glamour in being in the opposition. There is instead more glamour in being part of the ruling party (a higher chance of winning too!) In other words, people who join because of glamour are more likely to be from…..
Essentially, the writer here is biased. Bias is fine, but not to the point where it clouds judgment. She assumes that the act of joining the opposition is insincere and with the intention of being a troublemaker. More blatantly, she blocks out the flaws of one side, failing to realise that these flaws can also apply to those she has such great faith in (in the manner of a staunch christian fundamentalist).
The more pressing question is perhaps: why the hell was this silly piece of argument even published in the newspaper? Was it supposed to convince anyone not to vote for opposition scholars? Even if it was to serve a political agenda, they could have at least picked a more cogent analysis.
***
The PAP Scholarship
On a side note, the idea of a PAP scholarship sounds quite interesting. It needs to be distinct from ministry scholarship — so maybe it can focus on the grassroots, rotation among unions and community groups, campaigning preparations ….and then later get seconded to ministry and then run for politics proper (of course). It will truly be about the people directly (rather than some indirect and impersonal policy)
Additional requirements can be like: 1. overkill local community service track record 2. local university 3. ability to speak all three out of four of the languages plus dialect. 4. coming from the lower income brackets/ with family problems. 5. I’ll hand out this scholarship to psychology/literature/singapore history/malay studies students rather than to the conventional engineering and economics students. Wa, if I could put this experiment in place, maybe true servants can be ENGINEERED muahahaha.
In which case, I think it’d be as atrocious (as judas iscariot) to join as an opposition scholar — only if you received grooming direct from the party.
THIS is how you crack a lock when you don’t have the keys — with sheer willpower, determination, brute force and a mystical sword that can slice through anything.
Not even an “abloy” lock can stop the king of siam from leaving when he wants to — although I still prefer to just con someone into actually wanting to unlock it.
Lock’s still in my drawer as a small (but heavy) souvenir– i’m wondering what to do with it.
Scrap the math teacher thing — i only got one offer so far and it came from someone with MATH STUDIES (not serious one, of course…i hope). So, no. No.
Instead I want to learn how to swim butterfly!
According to this New York Times article:
Let’s consider the butterfly. One of the most taxing movements in sports, the butterfly requires greater energy than bicycling at 14 miles per hour, running a 10-minute mile, playing competitive basketball or carrying furniture upstairs. It burns more calories, demands larger doses of oxygen and elicits more fatigue than those other activities, meaning that over time it should increase a swimmer’s endurance and contribute to weight control.
The article goes on to talk about what is the best exercise and stuff I don’t really care about (since they sound like they need a gym instead of a pool). Actually butterfly IS the most “useless” stroke — meaning to say that apart from its ownage aesthetics, you’re not going to EVER see anyone swim in the sea butterfly style….
- UNLESS YOURE A MACHO RUSSIAN PREMIER THAT CAN DO JUDO
And goggles are for the americans! (A few decades earlier and the outcome of the cold war might have been different) Actually, photos might be misleading. He might just be standing there in shallow water gesturing….but i don’t think he even needs a misleading picture…
***
But back to my original topic: Same criteria as the math teacher apply — except for the Math competence…and self defence skills. Because any girl that can swim butterfly proficiently is probably on par with a female canoeist minus the big-ass weapon.
Actually, scrap the criteria — i just want to be able to swim 200M FLY – without dying.
Gremlin? I thought gmail was messing with my eyes for a while
I’m just a bit amused at the self-reference hahahaha (:
Anyway, the link above is broken. The real link is here
http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2011/04/higher_education
about the bubble of higher education.
The parallels with a housing bubble are quite striking:
Like the housing bubble, the education bubble is about security and insurance against the future. Both whisper a seductive promise into the ears of worried Americans: Do this and you will be safe. The excesses of both were always excused by a core national belief that no matter what happens in the world, these were the best investments you could make. Housing prices would always go up, and you will always make more money if you are college educated.
I don’t quite understand the concept of an education “bubble”. I think that there will always be people who are willing to “seek higher education” (or at least the recognition of doing so) and who are willing and able to pay for it. In addition, there will always be employers who have no other way to gauge an applicant apart from his or her academic certificates.
I don’t think that higher education is a bubble that might burst. But I do think that it might have the potential of doing more harm than good to the student at times. Consider students who plunge themselves into debt, hoping to go to law school and become a hotshot lawyer like Alan Shore, only to be unable to join the saturated market for lawyers and end up in a shitty job that doesn’t actually need the overpriced law degree.
Perhaps overrated is a better word. Unless you’re a medical/legal specialist, a degree probably won’t add much to your office career. Real experience probably does more (and four years of experience is quite hefty). Reading classics (or perhaps even economics) can’t do much in reality to help a person start a business.
Higher education doesnt seem to be about knowledge for knowledge sake these days. Nor does it seem to be entirely useful for the career minded, apart from the superficial name-sake gains.
So what is higher education for? I’ve no idea either. Perhaps its an extremely brilliant entrepreneurial venture by academics who read and write about obscure subjects — and treat it as a means to make a comfortable living.
***
But here’s something more optimistic (from the creator of Dilbert)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704101604576247143383496656.html?mod=e2fb
But why do we make B students sit through these same classes? That’s like trying to train your cat to do your taxes—a waste of time and money. Wouldn’t it make more sense to teach B students something useful, like entrepreneurship?
Quite optimistic what.
For a government to be a servant, but not a master — Is that really possible?
It’s a very school prefectorial board platitude — by servant leadership they mean the prefect council leads/plans/organises, and the non-council prefects do the storemen job of carry tables and ushering parents…without much real leading. So thats Model 1 of Servant leadership – The Organising Body model: within the body, some serve, some lead.
Speaking of storemen, maybe its like how you have guys to do your random saikang for you, but you help out as well. Thats Model 2 of servant leadership – The 3SG (Specialist Track) Model.
In my opinion, servant leadership at the highest level is just leadership by itself — the service is in the result of the leadership itself. i.e. the ship captain doesn’t service the ship by mopping the decks, he services it by directing the ship. Thats Model 3 of servant leadership: The CEO (aka Officer Track) model. So the servant in the ‘servant leadership’ is not very different from ‘leadership’ by itself. Its just an extra word — like how ‘Live run’ still plain means ‘run’ even without the ‘live’.
But moving onto more sophisticated (but less original ideas):
In his insightful book Good and Bad Power (which I quoted before. i really do think his book covers both the basics and more sophisticated ideas of politics quite well), Geoff Mulgan concludes with “seven ambiguities” in government. I’m not actually sure why Mulgan calls them ambiguities, given that they’re hardly ambiguous! He seems to be refering to unpalatable inevitabilities…(OR HARD TRUTHS). Briefly paraphrased:
First, governments make the rules and can suspend the rules.
Second (and paradoxically), governments have to act as masters in order to be good servants, at times overriding the will of those they serve.
Third, governments will inevitably serve some more than others.
Fourth, governments will intevitably have self interest — and those interests are different from both the people they serve and the people who lead it.
Fifth, governments are like a machine or a business (think bureaucracy), rather than being personal and a service
Sixth, people have to be actively involved if they want good government. This point is not elaborated but I think his last sentence sums it up well “A society of sheep begets a government of wolves.”
Seventh, people have to be willing to serve themselves and the community if they want the outcome of good government. “Good government is a joint creation”, rather than a uni-directional service to passive recipients.
“Servants, not masters?“
No doubt it is a reassuring comment, a speech to garner grass room support, and perhaps even an honest aspiration to work towards. Regardless of the truth behind this political philosophy, it is nonetheless a reminder to civil servants about their code of conduct.
But it is neither convincing nor even realistic to completely deny the role that leaders play as masters, even as “servant leaders”. There will always be some self-serving element in all governments — and there is nothing wrong with that.
***
To Master, To Govern and To Serve! – sorry, random.
Worse yet, I was tempted to title the post “The S and the M in governance”
After you tell your new guy to wear t shirt and shorts tmr, you don’t know whether to laugh or cry when he replies asking: “SHOES OR BOOTS”.
I had half the mind of saying Boots with shorts.
***
Having ignored several calls today and heard my same old ringtone for an extended period, I decided that its time to change a bit. So its 1am plus now and I have to be up early tmr morning, but here I am browsing my iTunes for songs to turn into ringtones.
The ringtone has to be loud and sufficiently attention catching from the start and gets progressively more aggressive.
My main ringtone will probably stay the same (cos i like it so) but now that I discovered that different people on the contact list can get different ringtones — things are even more fun.
For instance, my boss would probably get some Metallica song so that I’ll react faster than other calls.
Then for some special people, i will probably get the ringtone from one of my girly songs -_-
And the reason I’m still up at this doing it? Cos I think it’ll be mother amusing to see the faces of the other people in the office.
****
In the mean time (since i tangentially mentioned boots earlier), I’m wondering where to fit this – for ringtone sake of course:
….I’ll really get WTF faces like that mann.
I was idling around after lunch, surfing the internet and I went to check out the Singapore Daily. I just had three people’s servings of prawns and two people’s share of chicken. That’s close to eight prawns, not including one to give away (since my old school taught me that God loves a cheerful donation giver). Gloatful digression aside, I skipped over most of the political stuff to look for something that needed more thinking. Then I saw: “Comparing Yale in NUS and Cornell in Qatar“. Sounded quite interesting since I did read a bit about this Cornell in Qatar thing — uhh, in case I wanted to go somewhere where I could meet some oil tycoon’s daughter.
So I clicked on the link and got:
smells of censorship D:
Huh…what. I thought the article was just picked up this morning (or at least over the past weekend). Funny. It must have been taken down for some reason I don’t quite understand. Truth be told, I wasn’t thatttt interested — until it was taken down and hidden. I had to get my hands on those forbidden fruits! There was this other article that compared USP and YNC to show that there wasn’t much real difference in substance — only in surface packaging. And EVEN THEN, that five page of criticism wasn’t removed. So if this one got removed, it must be bleeding bleeding nasty. I had to see it. I just had to see it ><
And with the help of my techy friends (a case of how hard skills is superior to soft skills, sigh.):
LIKE MAGICKKK 
I figured the most asshole thing I could do would be to reproduce the entire article here. But the crux of the article is essentially this:
According to Cornell University’s own site, “Cornell is the first American university ever to offer its M.D. degree outside the United States.”
The degree of involvement of Cornell in its Qatar campus differs markedly in two aspects. Firstly, the same degree is awarded to students from both campuses. Secondly, the Qatar campus is featured both on cornell.edu/visiting/qatar and on qatar-weill.cornell.edu — both sites hosted by Cornell University.
As of the time of writing, we know that YNC degrees will be awarded by NUS, and the only website featuring YNC is hosted by NUS (ync.nus.edu.sg).
In essence, Cornell seems to take pride in having a direct and large involvement in Qatar. Yeah, pride seems to be the word. And this same pride that normally comes with embarking on a new project seems….less prominent here? …I might be getting a one sided picture though.
Three questions:
1. How Yale will the Yale-NUS thing be?
2. Why does Yale seem so much more reserved and passive, as compared to Cornell in Qatar?
3. Above all — Why did the article disappear suddenly? I can’t quite grasp the implications of this article — unless there was a really gross factual error. Normally, mistakes are just edited out later on anyway — unless there is something wrong with the core of the article.
….Of course, it could have just been a technical failure.
***
(Incidentally, my badly cropped screenshots actually end up spelling something funny >< )
Last night as I slowly slipped away from the conscious world, I caught a quick blurry flickering glimmer of things unpaused with my eyes and ears, right at the moment i was about to fall asleep. To hear was usually easy for some reason, but to see…was rare – something to marvel at.
And then, it faded away and I can’t recall anymore the next day.
But it’s still a long time before life unpauses — assuming life unpauses just the way it was. In the mean time, I still have a lot of things to work on, and I have to be up at 5am tomorrow. such misfortune.
I’ve unprecedentedly started going in and out of workplace in uniform proper. Previously, I would have changed to a pair of jeans, a pair of water-soluble shoes and a shirt that I would otherwise not wear outside at all. Wearing uniform is now my preferred choice since 1) I have one more pair of jeans to wear out now, 2) nobody knows when you’re really going to leave, 3) i’m not scared of puddles anymore and 4) it saves me the trouble of going up to the fifth floor just to change — okay, not really, i still change, just to something lighter.
But the other day was the first time I actually went out to eat dinner and hang out in a shopping centre (the nearest one of course) in uniform. It’s a bit like going to town in your school uniform, without taking off your badge (lame idea anyway). One cannot help but to become more self conscious about each and every action.
Why so? — IN CASE KENA STOMP.
My friend and I were eating at this posh-looking italian place, worrying that someone would STOMP it with a cameraphone: “ARE THEY PAID TOO MUCH NOWSADAYS?” (i recall that was the first time I saw beulah spend more than $5 on one meal, marking a transformation to increased spending – okay, not really)
Same for a comfortable ice cream place “ARE THEY TOO COMFORTABLE/LUXURIOUS NOWSADAYS?”
I even had to remind my friend to go throw his ice cream cup away before “someone takes a photo of us walking away from the pile of undisposed of ice cream cups and tissue” — back facing them of course.
It’s an effective and uniquely Singapore method of societal self-policing, what with this atmosphere of fear and public denunciations. But with this mechanism removed — you get jokers trying to blow dry the back of his rainsoaked uniform against the hand-dryer. Toilet where got people bring camera…right?
I so want to get my STOMP shirt, black with the logo. Or with a line like “STOMP ME IF YOU DARE”, with a freebie “I have been on STOMP five times” gold star badge.
***
Sounds like I spent a lot that day actually. For him, its because he wasn’t going ladies night and hence could save on the money. For me, its because I thought I wasn’t going to be seeing my usual-source-of-money-drain this week….but its almost as if, everytime I thought I wouldn’t, I end up going to anyway -_-
The last time I used the word goggles — I was referring to beer goggles. THE MORE I DRINK, THE BETTER YOU LOOK.
There are two things which I perpetually misplace: goggles and mouth thermometers. Some classmates might recall me just heckcare-ing and just paying $5 for a thermometer each time they wanted to carry out a health check. Other times I would pretend to have a thermometer somehow. (I remember I actually scammed the front office into giving me a free one once, I just can’t remember how. How unfortunate.) Or I’d just go missing altogether since its more convenient than not having a thermometer. …The things I do to avoid getting nagged.
I can’t even remember how my goggles look like by now, or when I even last wore them. I don’t really have the habit of wearing goggles, bad as it may be, my eyes are actually quite accustomed to chlorine water by now. However, for some reason, when swimming outside of camp, I feel that it might be more fulfilling if I had clear vision….inappropriate and misleading as it might potentially sound. yeahhh ><.
In the process of searching for my goggles — guess what: I found THREE mouth thermometers inside my cupboards and bags. I also found the belt I thought I left at sembawang. Strange though, I never touched the bag I found my goggles in ever since I left The Island. Things sometimes randomly go missing in my room, as though there were gremlins (real ones) — for instance, my old grey school bag with the LAST SUPPER keychain disappeared mysteriously. Either that, or my mum throws stuff away and forgets.
Maybe the next time I’m searching for a thermometer, I’ll find my goggles. I have a feeling it’s with one of my siblings though.
I quite like seeing how people make arguments, its effectiveness and the purpose behind the things they say. I found the interview quite stimulating and many points quite well elaborated given the direction of the argument made at least, but this question impressed me.
Question posed: “SM has recently said in the newspapers that they’re having trouble attracting people from the private sector to join to form the leadership team. However, I see that the opposition has managed to attract many people from the private sector. So I’m curious: why is it that the high salaries and the potential of a leadership position have not attracted these people from the private sector, but they have gone to the opposition instead? So is there something fundamentally wrong or should we revise the old chestnut of paying top dollar for top talent?”
Response: “I’m not sure whether we’re looking for exactly the same kind of people. There are a lot of people in the private sector. We’re looking for a certain type of person, certain job specifications, and not just job specifications, but also commitment, integrity and purpose. The challenge with bringing people from the private sector is because they are set in their career, they know what they’re doing “
This response warps things by making the underlying assertion that it is due to a party choice in selecting people, rather than people selecting the party (which is what the question is about). The second part doesn’t address the phenomenon of why it works for the opposition.
Admittedly, I actually can’t think of a very convincing way to reply to such a pointed question either — I’d probably have smoked something about how people from the private sector don’t want to compete with the experienced commissars (read: scholars,fast tracked scholars) from ministries already. Main government is more selective and saturated with talent than the opposition.
Actually fuck lah, if the opposition didn’t attract people from the private sector, THEN WHERE ELSE?
***
This question (or rather, POI) is awesome for four reasons:
1. You can’t say no because it is attributed to a credible source, namely, your upperstudy.
2. It attacks the justification of ministerial salaries to attract and retain talent (yawns, old debate)
3. It addresses how there is a lack of talent sufficient for a second team. the question points out that there actually are people from the private sector willing to join. In fact, the question takes it one step further by contrasting it with the incumbent’s inability to do likewise, and goes on to attribute it to a creditable source. Although, private sector not equal to talent. There is the “high flyer” part of the private sector and the not-so-high flyer — it might be good to clarify which kind the opposition is made out of.
4. It even deals with an earlier part of the speech: “He has two choices. First, join the opposition…but really spend his life — and it can be quite a long time — waiting and watching for [us] to screw up, then he will be ready to take over.The other alternative is to join the government, help it to make better decisions, implement good policies and avoid making mistakes and screwing up. Now, which makes more sense for him and for Singapore?”
I actually liked the sarcasm in that part of the speech, which highlights the 1) futility of joining the opposition by creating a perception that they’re just going to wait, 2) the strong confidence that there won’t be a screw up (hence vote for us), and 3) that it “makes more sense” to go into government, ergo it makes no sense to go otherwise.
***
Quotes of the day:
1. “Do you believe everything you read in the Straits Times” — i think “newspaper” might be a less personal-attack word. lol@ how the newspaper company took the courtesy to choose to publish that bit -_- The student should have responded “what else is there to believe in?”
2. “Only two were born in Singapore — MM and one other…” — i wonder if he forgot who the other was ><
I think I just scared off, or at least confused, this poor overworked telemarketer who called me 8pm at night asking about my credit cards —
by telling him that I am a “Singaporean Chinese Female“, when he asked if I was a “Singaporean Chinese Male”. (Mentally try to recall my voice)
Poor guy though. So late and still working hard — not like my input would have helped at all.
Rule number three: never look back!
I’m okay with prioritising comfort. Most honest, sane people do. In fact, I think its stupid not to — I mean, I did share a cab back to jewrong from The Island. The car boot carried my bag for me Lets not get hypocritical, I would say the high ranking officials happily put their bag in the boot of their car, turn on the air con and drive home as well. The car boot carries the bag for them too. But these are not incongruous with societal views. I think it is a stupid move to do something glaringly embarrassing in public.
But compensating for a stupid move with even greater stupidity cannot be justified by remorse — stepping forward and admitting you did something stupid is that greater stupidity. It might be the right thing to do, but certainly not the best thing, therefore it is irrational — stupidity in the more polite form. (For further reference, this is Paragraph Two.)
I quantify this in terms of consequences, utility and benefits, risks and costs. The benefit from admitting is non-existent. The cost is embarrassment, even greater embarrassment, since there is now a crystallised point of focus for the shaming. The probability of getting caught is low — given that the people who claimed to take action haven’t already done so. In short, there is nothing to gain. My opinion is that you do not step forward UNLESS UNLESS you know that you are about to get caught anyway.
Maybe the Organisation managed to pull some mass mindgame stunt and convince everyone that they already knew who the culprit was, but was giving a chance to step forward and admit for a lessened punishment. This trick is so primary-school (unless they did it in a more sophisticated way) and I refer you back to paragraph two.
Maybe “remorse” was the reason. Very impactful diction — but lets dissect this further by completing the sentence: “remorse about letting someone else carry his bag”. Okay, remorse is a valid motivation if you killed someone or you cheated on your lover, because it is of sufficient moral severity. Even in these cases, I still think that its a stupid and irrational move to step forward, because the costs outweigh the benefits of admitting. However, I feel that it is much more compelling to do so — and i might even do that if i killed/cheated. There are varying degrees of remorse, and this one is like admitting to “who stole the cookie from the cookie jar“. I refer you back to paragraph two.
Is this bravery? Perhaps — but its not a respectable kind of bravery nor does it disprove any point made about stupidity. In fact, I think it is quite the opposite. Bravery isn’t the driving mindset, fear is. It is fear of the uncertain, in the form of a lingering worry — that can only be removed by honest admission….or so they think. Again, refer to paragraph two.
But here’s the real main reason I think it is stupidity: if you admit, you become a symbol of a softie generation and its criticisms. But if you don’t admit (and assuming you never get caught), you become a mystery and a legend, complete with the sense of awe that people get from history (or True Crime) books that say “to this day, we do not know the identity of -“
LEGENDARY
***
Actually, this is the real reason I think he admitted: The news hit the papers on Tuesday. Meaning that the admission was on Monday. It could have been earlier, but unlikely they will delay over the weekends. My guess is that the poor lad here went to church on Sunday, was told something by someone on a stage (no pun intended) and – REFER TO PARAGRAPH TWO.
Ladies and Gents, I think I found the source of my white hairs — not the little stresses of life or the bigger philosophical worries, neither money nor women — but math. The melancholy of math.
Right now my head is slightly light from an afternoon of intense math practise. Its something I havent had for a long time. It is a process wrought with frustrations when you realise that your answer is none of the five options, and you try to pick the closest one — if anywhere near at all. Then you pause at every other juncture wondering if there is a smarter short cut from the time consuming way you’re familiar with, or to quickly skip to the next question and come back later — which you know you won’t.
But I exaggerate. I’m actually quite proud of being able to use latent knowledge I didn’t know I still had…. like cosine rule and other more complex trigo manipulations. It was less bloody than I expected. Still not good, but a passable start. I’ll admit that I forgot remainder factor theorem (but managed to learn it back quickly). Maybe Hitler was right.
And the paradox of it all — I’m doing math to get even more math in future. If I succeed at this, more math will await. Its like how good workers end up getting more work — its a funny system of rewards.
****
i LOLed when I saw this:
okay actually not so funny if it happens in real life. SL MATH BOLEH! i shall survive anyway. seriously speaking…i don’t actually have anything to complain about yet.
There is a very fundamental difference between the real working world and the Alternative Reality of the Missing Years:
in the former, you actually try to solve problems.
In the latter, you realise that it is actually not in your interest to 1) point out any problems (for reasons such as avoiding blame, hassle etc) and hence 2) not solve any problems since you cant have solutions without knowing what problems you have and overall 3) end up just avoiding problems. Life is comfortable, why change anything?
A brainstorm session on problem solving and improvement was spent thinking how to come out with a Strawman problem. It was in our interest not to rock the boat — hence the problem had to be nuanced in a way such that no solution that will change our blissful way of life will appear. So either we come up with a problem that is 1) inevitable and hence unsolvable, 2) a problem that can be solved so easily it hardly counts as a problem, or 3) plain not our problem, but someone else’s.
I am assuming that the real world is different though — at least there are real incentives there.
Recent Comments