What specifically is it about those questions that would
disadvantage the lower-income groups?
If you’ve ever gone for an interview, you will probably know how
important preparation is. Knowing the right things to say will make
all the difference in getting a job, or in this case, a
scholarship. And my point is, teenagers from lower-income families
are now disadvantaged, as they are less likely to be “trained” by
their parents on what to say during these interviews. Basic
questions, like “What is your aim in applying for this
scholarship?” and “What do you know about this sector?”, might be
easy for the interview-seasoned adult, but a teenager who has had
no experience and no guidance will probably fumble when answering
the questions.
But unlike a job interview where if we fail to make the cut, we
can always try to apply to another company in the same industry,
for an undergrad scholarship interview, usually, that is the only
chance that the teenager has got to prove himself or herself. They
only have one chance to get the undergrad scholarship – after their
A levels. And if they screw up, they will not get a chance to apply
for the same scholarship again.
This point seems to address equal employment opportunities
rather than equal education opportunities.
Yes, but employment opportunities are often a function of
education opportunities, don’t you think? The point addresses the
impact of unequal opportunities in education on the future life of
a person.
What specifically would finances or education contribute to
the
parents’ ability to help?
The importance of financial assistance for the poor has been
understated. I think many people believe that money won’t make a
difference, choosing instead to believe in the power of the
individual to overcome all odds. But usually, these people are the
very ones who don’t need financial help. Try asking a poorer family
struggling to make ends meet if they would rather have financial
assistance, or if they would prefer to be left alone to overcome
their odds by themselves. The answer seems to be a no-brainer.
At the moment, I don’t think the financial assistance for
students is sufficient. I believe the MOE in
Singapore has an extra-curricular fund for every student. But this
is across the board. The poorer students do not get more help. So,
in the event that the funds are insufficient, those students who
are unable to pay out of their own pockets for expensive
programmes, such as overseas trips, will lose out, in terms of the
experience.
What resources would specifically help
lower-income-bracket
kids?
Money. An education contribution, maybe tied to low-income
parents’ CPF accounts, for their kids’
welfare? And I mean, specifically, for the children before they
enter the university. When they reach uni level, of course, they
can use their parents’ CPF for their tuition
fees. Currently, only “baby bonuses” are given for parents of young
children. This is tied to how many children one has, and doesn’t
evaluate the financial status of the parents.
Lower-income families, unlike those who can afford to contribute
to endowment funds, often do not save up for their kids’ education.
That’s usually the last thing on their minds. So, more money for
extra activities, to fund overseas trips, to provide tuition
teachers for those who need them, would be extremely useful. Often,
these extra activities may be subsidised, but still not fully paid
for. The student would also need to co-pay. But even with
subsidised rates, the poorer kids will have a problem paying, and
may not be able to join as many activities as their peers.
In terms of helping with paying for tutors, it’s because it’s
not reasonable to expect a school teacher to offer intensive
remedial for students all the time. Now, poorer kids who are
lagging in their studies either don’t do anything abt it, or they
go to social NGOs where free tuition is provided. But the quality
of such volunteer tutors is not being controlled. Also, the
environment in which this takes place, having been a volunteer
tutor myself, is not always conducive for teaching a child, leading
to a haphazard type of learning that doesn’t really help.
Kids who grow up in money-scarce families are very conscious of
that fact. Some of them may appear wayward, but they actually do
care very much abt their pride and their family’s money woes. In
fact, there are many bright students who do part-time jobs just to
supplement their family’s income (and not just for branded goods).
Surely that would affect their studies? Why shldn’t the govt do
more to help them?