The Asian educational system has oft been criticized for placing too much emphasis on rote memorization and tight adherence to procedure. It is true that this system stifles original thought, which is one of the reasons why fewer Nobel prizes are won by Asians in Asia, despite our outstanding results on tests.
However this educational system is not all bad: it served an important purpose in the past, and to some extent today.
Consider the situation most Asian countries faced in the mid twentieth century. The West was much more advanced in science and technology, so our priority was to absorb this science and tech in order to build our countries on double quick time, so that the economy could grow quickly and everyone would enjoy a better life. In other words, we needed to do in thirty years what the West took over a hundred years to do.
Since the technology already existed, there was no pressing need for us to develop original thinkers, the more urgent thing was to train up a cadre of people who could grasp existing technology and use it to develop the country. As such, rote training is the most effective method for mass producing such people. This is also the reason why Asians have historically flocked to the more practical courses such as engineering and accountancy, while shying away from the arts, because we needed to modernize ASAP.
Only now do we have the breathing space to take a step back and consider the development of creativity and original thinking.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Thursday, May 23, 2013
On Absinthe
Absinthe is, as legend goes, the drink that inspired Van Gogh to cut off his left ear and present it to a prostitute he liked. I had the chance to partake of it recently, though fortunately both my ears are still intact.
The drink itself comes in a shot, accompanied by a glass of ice and a sugar cube. This sugar cube is placed in a teaspoon balanced across the glass. Now, the purpose of this setup is to allow mixing of the three elements of ice, sugar and absinthe via fire.
My waiter tried to do it by setting the shot itself on fire. To his great dismay, once the shot was on fire, it was too hot for him to grasp and pour in. After a few attempts of this, he gave up and called another more experienced fellow, to avoid getting his fingers even more scalded.
As the second guy came along, he solved the problem admirably, with a deft flourish of the cup he poured a little of it onto the sugar cube, then set the cube itself on fire. With that touch of flame added in, the remainder of the drink could be poured over the half-melted cube to combine everything into one glorious concotion.
Now you too know how to enjoy this infamous drink.
The drink itself comes in a shot, accompanied by a glass of ice and a sugar cube. This sugar cube is placed in a teaspoon balanced across the glass. Now, the purpose of this setup is to allow mixing of the three elements of ice, sugar and absinthe via fire.
My waiter tried to do it by setting the shot itself on fire. To his great dismay, once the shot was on fire, it was too hot for him to grasp and pour in. After a few attempts of this, he gave up and called another more experienced fellow, to avoid getting his fingers even more scalded.
As the second guy came along, he solved the problem admirably, with a deft flourish of the cup he poured a little of it onto the sugar cube, then set the cube itself on fire. With that touch of flame added in, the remainder of the drink could be poured over the half-melted cube to combine everything into one glorious concotion.
Now you too know how to enjoy this infamous drink.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Racial quotas in tertiary education
Many in Malaysia criticize the policy of reserving a certain percentage of university seats for each race, maintaining that admission should be purely on academic merit. While I feel the pain of students who are denied opportunities in favor of another with lesser results, I do think that there are also arguments in favor of the quota system as well.
In the United States, the quota system is alive and well too, especially in the top universities such as Harvard and Yale. It is already common knowledge that Asian students need better grades to get into a top university compared to African-American and Latino students, as Asians are already overrepresented in the Ivies while the other two races are underrepresented, admissions officers try to "re-balance" the student percentages. The proclaimed reason for doing so is to build a more diverse class.
Truth be told, the very reason that American universities base their admissions on a diverse, holistic set of criteria that includes much more than academic achievement was due to racial factors - in the 19th century Jews were attending the top universities in numbers far in excess to their proportion of the population, hence the administration had to do some "re-balancing".
This may strike many of us as unfair, and in a way it is, for shouldn't a student who works hard to score 90 marks be rewarded over another who scores 80, no matter the color of their skin?
If the sole purpose of the university system was to provide education and advance human knowledge, this would indeed be greatly unfair. Yet the top universities serve another purpose, which is to provide a pathway to participate in the top political and business circles. A huge number of America's elite come from the Ivies, thus to allow all ethnic groups to have a stake in the top, an effort to ensure diversity is necessary. The same predominance of alumni of prestigious universities can be seen in the ruling circles of many countries, many Chinese leaders come from Tsinghua university, while in Japan the University of Tokyo is the road to Parliament.
Does this apply in our country now? Due to the relative youth of our universities, many top leaders have been educated overseas, however in time I believe the influence of our top university alumni will be increasingly felt in political circles. Thus in principle, there is something to say for the quota system, despite its unfairness to individual students.
Of course, there are more deep-seated problems with politics as it is run in our nation, but those are separate from the theory I have expounded on above.
In the United States, the quota system is alive and well too, especially in the top universities such as Harvard and Yale. It is already common knowledge that Asian students need better grades to get into a top university compared to African-American and Latino students, as Asians are already overrepresented in the Ivies while the other two races are underrepresented, admissions officers try to "re-balance" the student percentages. The proclaimed reason for doing so is to build a more diverse class.
Truth be told, the very reason that American universities base their admissions on a diverse, holistic set of criteria that includes much more than academic achievement was due to racial factors - in the 19th century Jews were attending the top universities in numbers far in excess to their proportion of the population, hence the administration had to do some "re-balancing".
This may strike many of us as unfair, and in a way it is, for shouldn't a student who works hard to score 90 marks be rewarded over another who scores 80, no matter the color of their skin?
If the sole purpose of the university system was to provide education and advance human knowledge, this would indeed be greatly unfair. Yet the top universities serve another purpose, which is to provide a pathway to participate in the top political and business circles. A huge number of America's elite come from the Ivies, thus to allow all ethnic groups to have a stake in the top, an effort to ensure diversity is necessary. The same predominance of alumni of prestigious universities can be seen in the ruling circles of many countries, many Chinese leaders come from Tsinghua university, while in Japan the University of Tokyo is the road to Parliament.
Does this apply in our country now? Due to the relative youth of our universities, many top leaders have been educated overseas, however in time I believe the influence of our top university alumni will be increasingly felt in political circles. Thus in principle, there is something to say for the quota system, despite its unfairness to individual students.
Of course, there are more deep-seated problems with politics as it is run in our nation, but those are separate from the theory I have expounded on above.
Friday, March 29, 2013
On Batman (and how he could do better)
Batman is basically a guy with no superpowers, but is very smart and well trained in fighting, and has the money to buy a ton of equipment. He uses his tough body (damn that sounds gay) to go around subduing outlandish villains and petty thugs with non-lethal force.
I will just post this pic to illustrate the trouble Christian Bale went through to get a body that can whack some bad guys.
The question is, if he has such intellect and money, why would he use hand to hand combat as the FIRST instead of the LAST resort? Someone said that if Batman was really smart, he'd be Ironman, and I find that quite true. Even without ascending to such heights of technological prowess, a simple tranquilizer gun would help him aplenty in taking down villains without killing them. Tasers would do fine too.
Instead he has to go and get himself hurt here and there. He isn't even that invincible, I remember a few common bad guys gave him some difficulty, as did the Joker's dogs. Surely tranquilizer darts, or a gun that fires nets would have helped him tremendously in both those scenarios.
Maybe the reason he uses his fists is that it makes him look cool. Since he is a billionaire, and they may not have much better things to do, it makes sense now. After all what do those rich people buy yachts for? To make them look glamorous, am I right?
The only answer that makes sense is that Batman spent a lot of money training to be a ninja, so now he doesn't want this training to go to waste, and wants to look impossibly cool in the bargain. So how does he beat up so many people without tiring out?
Easy. He pays them to pretend to be bad people. That's why villains in Batman all dress and behave in very eccentric ways - it's so that Batman looks even more awesome in comparison. The solution to everything is clear now.
I will just post this pic to illustrate the trouble Christian Bale went through to get a body that can whack some bad guys.
The question is, if he has such intellect and money, why would he use hand to hand combat as the FIRST instead of the LAST resort? Someone said that if Batman was really smart, he'd be Ironman, and I find that quite true. Even without ascending to such heights of technological prowess, a simple tranquilizer gun would help him aplenty in taking down villains without killing them. Tasers would do fine too.
Instead he has to go and get himself hurt here and there. He isn't even that invincible, I remember a few common bad guys gave him some difficulty, as did the Joker's dogs. Surely tranquilizer darts, or a gun that fires nets would have helped him tremendously in both those scenarios.
Maybe the reason he uses his fists is that it makes him look cool. Since he is a billionaire, and they may not have much better things to do, it makes sense now. After all what do those rich people buy yachts for? To make them look glamorous, am I right?
The only answer that makes sense is that Batman spent a lot of money training to be a ninja, so now he doesn't want this training to go to waste, and wants to look impossibly cool in the bargain. So how does he beat up so many people without tiring out?
Easy. He pays them to pretend to be bad people. That's why villains in Batman all dress and behave in very eccentric ways - it's so that Batman looks even more awesome in comparison. The solution to everything is clear now.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Arranged Marriage
I was talking with this colleague of mine who hailed from India. He was telling me the story of how he met his lovely wife:
"So my mom summoned me one day after lunch. She opened a book with a few photographs and asked me to pick one."
"After I picked one, the girl I picked went out for a couple of meals with me. Both of us approved of the other side, and her family and my family were obviously alright with it or else her photo would not have been in the book."
"So we got married." He did not tell me how much the dowry was to my great disappointment.
All in all it sounded like a very convenient way of finding a life partner. But to our modern ears, it seems a bit unromantic, and one may wonder whether such a orchestrated approach can lead to romantic bliss or not. However from what I have read on the Internet, its proponents claim that couples produced through such means end up happier than the usual couple on average.
Is this true? I suppose the happiness that stems from an arrangement, especially where that is the norm, is due to the fact that one tends not to lament about unpicked choices, as the pool to pick from is small. In other words, a free-market dating society is akin to a large supermarket where you have twenty different types of bread to choose from and you have to pick one, while an arranged marriage society is more like a store where there are two or three brands only. So people spend less time thinking about the alternatives and tell themselves that "my current choice is the best".
"So my mom summoned me one day after lunch. She opened a book with a few photographs and asked me to pick one."
"After I picked one, the girl I picked went out for a couple of meals with me. Both of us approved of the other side, and her family and my family were obviously alright with it or else her photo would not have been in the book."
"So we got married." He did not tell me how much the dowry was to my great disappointment.
All in all it sounded like a very convenient way of finding a life partner. But to our modern ears, it seems a bit unromantic, and one may wonder whether such a orchestrated approach can lead to romantic bliss or not. However from what I have read on the Internet, its proponents claim that couples produced through such means end up happier than the usual couple on average.
Is this true? I suppose the happiness that stems from an arrangement, especially where that is the norm, is due to the fact that one tends not to lament about unpicked choices, as the pool to pick from is small. In other words, a free-market dating society is akin to a large supermarket where you have twenty different types of bread to choose from and you have to pick one, while an arranged marriage society is more like a store where there are two or three brands only. So people spend less time thinking about the alternatives and tell themselves that "my current choice is the best".
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Why I look down on (some) Girl gamers
I do not believe that girls should not play videogames. On the contrary, I believe that the right to play games is an inalienable human right, ranking on par with the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. What I look down on is a certain behavioral trait among certain girl gamers.
Before I expound on this trait let me relate a tale: I used to play King of Fighters (a highly technical fighting game) in arcades. One fine day I saw this fellow who had a shrunken left arm, probably due to polio or something of the sort. He sat down, and since he could not grip the joystick with his left hand, he used his elbow to handle it. The other players fought him with respect, and he defeated countless numbers of them fair and square, till he earned the everlasting worship of all gamers present at that glorious occasion.
Did he ask for quarter because of his handicap? I'll bet the thought never once crossed his valiant soul.
Yet when I play Dota, I keep seeing girls type "hey don't go so hard on me, I'm a girl". To me this is an affront to the spirit of all gamers, an insult to the gods of gaming, for they admire those who revel in fighting against the strongest that others can throw at them.
If the girl said that she was a new player and asked for allowance due to that, I would grant it no matter what gender the player is. But asking on account of gender is simply disgraceful, unless one were to assume that the female gender is possessed of an inferior intellect, which I disagree with. In the physical realm I would cut girls some slack, yes, but not in the arena of the mind - which games belong to.
So if you are a girl gamer, and you do not say the aforementioned sentence, I congratulate you and welcome you to the realm of warriors. If you do, be inspired by the example of the handicapped guy I raised above, and swear off such cowardly statements for all time.
Before I expound on this trait let me relate a tale: I used to play King of Fighters (a highly technical fighting game) in arcades. One fine day I saw this fellow who had a shrunken left arm, probably due to polio or something of the sort. He sat down, and since he could not grip the joystick with his left hand, he used his elbow to handle it. The other players fought him with respect, and he defeated countless numbers of them fair and square, till he earned the everlasting worship of all gamers present at that glorious occasion.
Did he ask for quarter because of his handicap? I'll bet the thought never once crossed his valiant soul.
Yet when I play Dota, I keep seeing girls type "hey don't go so hard on me, I'm a girl". To me this is an affront to the spirit of all gamers, an insult to the gods of gaming, for they admire those who revel in fighting against the strongest that others can throw at them.
If the girl said that she was a new player and asked for allowance due to that, I would grant it no matter what gender the player is. But asking on account of gender is simply disgraceful, unless one were to assume that the female gender is possessed of an inferior intellect, which I disagree with. In the physical realm I would cut girls some slack, yes, but not in the arena of the mind - which games belong to.
So if you are a girl gamer, and you do not say the aforementioned sentence, I congratulate you and welcome you to the realm of warriors. If you do, be inspired by the example of the handicapped guy I raised above, and swear off such cowardly statements for all time.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
A small Psychological Insight
There was a woman who lived next door to a family with a noisy baby.
Originally she never particularly liked the baby; in fact she felt the
baby was rather annoying when it kept crying in the afternoon while she
was trying to take a nap. Then one day, the house the baby was in caught
fire, and the family was all out. The woman rushed in and managed to
save the baby. From that day on, she liked the baby very much and did
not dislike its afternoon crying any more. Someone asked her:"How come
you like this baby so much more now?" The woman replied:"Oh, because I
risked my life for it!"
So we can see that people like something more when they contribute towards it. This is because of two reasons. The first reason is because they feel that they have made "an investment" in it, whether the investment be of money, of time or of effort. This is why you see guys chasing after girls for years and spending tons of money to buy expensive gifts for them, they feel "it would be a great pity" to stop chasing, because of the sunken costs involved.
The second reason is because of the feeling of superiority. This is why you see older people feeling very happy when a younger person asks for their advice on anything; they feel that it shows respect, and it proves the greatness of their intellect and character to be asked for advice. If you don't believe me, go back and ask your boss for advice on your work (when he is in a good mood), and I bet he will like you more after that.
Looking at this, we can tell that if you want someone to like you, the idea is to make them invest in you. Girls often do this inadvertently by telling a guy about their sad moments or how their boyfriend doesn't treat them well, and the poor idiot immediately falls: "She must be confiding in me because I'm a manly man!" Idiot. The idea is to:
1. Make the party you are interested in care for you. Maybe tell a sad story or something, but don't reveal all in one go.
2. Make the other party help you in some way. If you can't achieve this straight out, maybe do an exchange, eg: you treat the other party to eat in exchange for him/her to do an assignment for you. At least both sides have a sunken cost then.
This works for both genders!
So we can see that people like something more when they contribute towards it. This is because of two reasons. The first reason is because they feel that they have made "an investment" in it, whether the investment be of money, of time or of effort. This is why you see guys chasing after girls for years and spending tons of money to buy expensive gifts for them, they feel "it would be a great pity" to stop chasing, because of the sunken costs involved.
The second reason is because of the feeling of superiority. This is why you see older people feeling very happy when a younger person asks for their advice on anything; they feel that it shows respect, and it proves the greatness of their intellect and character to be asked for advice. If you don't believe me, go back and ask your boss for advice on your work (when he is in a good mood), and I bet he will like you more after that.
Looking at this, we can tell that if you want someone to like you, the idea is to make them invest in you. Girls often do this inadvertently by telling a guy about their sad moments or how their boyfriend doesn't treat them well, and the poor idiot immediately falls: "She must be confiding in me because I'm a manly man!" Idiot. The idea is to:
1. Make the party you are interested in care for you. Maybe tell a sad story or something, but don't reveal all in one go.
2. Make the other party help you in some way. If you can't achieve this straight out, maybe do an exchange, eg: you treat the other party to eat in exchange for him/her to do an assignment for you. At least both sides have a sunken cost then.
This works for both genders!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)