Oh, goody! Plenty of questions for me to answer! 
And your words make me wonder, what are prof and all research
students for if research is that easy?
Well, by the time the students get to the research stage,
they would typically have become the top 10% of the top 5% that get
past Honours to postgrad. By the time they make it there, research
principles should be second nature to them (although, admittedly,
there is the occasional student who manages through slip through
the filter). Within those circles, they should already understand
the rules well enough to make it easy. It's takes knowledge rather
than intelligence to conduct competent research - the intelligence
simply comes in the conceptualisation stage of the process, and JH
has plenty of that on hand.
Why did we need good students for research?
You don't. It's more of a fringe benefit. That said, having
a competent student as a dog's body that you won't have to watch
all the time gives the researchers respite from the crap work so
they can focus on the real issues.
why did research seems endless??
You obviously haven't done research before. Getting past
the research approval stage, especially the ethics commitee, takes
a long time because all the angles crucial to the study's success
have to be considered. Depending on the nature of the data to be
collected, it may take some time. Typically, getting participants
for the studies is the most time-consuming part of the process.
Once you have your data, it's a piece of cake.
Why did it even take years to complete one project?
See above.
Why did we even need to inject so much money into research?
Not that I'm any purveyor of medical equipment, but you
would expect a fairly hefty bill for the gear to conduct biomedical
research, wouldn't you? On top of that, add salaries and research
grants into the equation and pretty soon it adds up to real
money.
why did we even need to call a assistant prof a assistant prof when
he is as competent as a prof?
It's a rank thing. Why are some COs colonels while others
are majors?
Seriously, most systems are based upon a number of criteria that
vary from institution to institution. Unfortunately, one flaw is
that one of the criteria is simply the number of publications per
year and in total that the academic puts out, not taking into
account the quality of the publications. I've seen so-called
professors churning out utter piffle over and over again, and they
still get their professorships. I've seen others get granted the
status as a political reward for bringing in research funding. So
you see, as I've been saying all along, it doesn't really mean all
that much.
Why is it that even students that are up to mark did not even think
of applying to JH?
As I said in my previous post, do we really know if they
didn't apply, or did they have to pass through A*STAR
first?
Also for brand name, why is it that the minute i know my friend
buys a volvo, i know he views safely as very important?
Again, it's the brand name, isn't it? For years, Saab have
actually trounced Volvo in the safety stakes, but Volvo's still the
name associated with it. It illustrates the association between the
name and reality.
Why is it that if he buys evo, i know he is a chongster? shows
there are quality associated with brand name.
Well, I'd answer this one if I knew specifically what a
chongster was.
Why don't they buy toyota which is cheap and able to transport them
to the right location?
Well, it supports my point, doesn't it? Reality and
pragmatism don't always figure into the picture, and it's more of a
self-image issue.
why is it that when things are made in china, most people thought
it is an inferior product??
Well, what markets does China traditionally operate in?
Until recently, it's been low-tech products that peasants - excuse
me - Chinese citizens can produce at a lower price than others,
such as shoes, clothes, toys and fabrics. They're still working
their way up in the higher-tech markets because the purchase
decisions in those brackets tend to require more careful
consideration of the products' capabilities, and they still fall
short of the market leaders there (unless the products are produced
under license).
How did companies even able to make some product into a
brand?
Just set high prices??
Of course. Rolex don't make the best watches in the world,
and if you wanted to tell the time, you would buy a Casio at a
hundredth the price. Despite that, they raise their prices by
between 7 and 8 percent every 12 to 24 months. Hans Wilsdorf, the
founder of Rolex, is acknowledged to have been one of the best
marketers of his time, and he built up the brand name well beyond
the actual value of the product. Despite the fact that prices have
fairly much doubled over the past ten years for the same product,
sales rates have not dropped. Why? Brand name.
Why did A star had to bother with collaborating with JH?
Let's face it, Singapore's spent decades hammering the "yes
sir, no sir, three bags full" mentality into the people, and then
when the Thais, Indians and other nationalities came about being
able to produce the same things at a third the price, Singapore
finally got a wake-up call and realsied that they had to get into
the R&D game fast, because inflation had gotten way too high to
supposrt the old game of producing electronics and other goods for
a low price. It's fairly obvious that they would look to slingshot
their way into research by learning whatever they could from
established researchers. Unfortuantely, once they figure they've
got the hang of it, they've got the unfortunate habit of killing
the goose.
If they want ideas, why don't they pay big money to entice the
researchers over to singapore? They pay even bigger money to
JH.
Well, well, well. As I've already mentioned, off the top of
my head I can pick out three instances of where Singapore has
mistreated the talent they bring in, and the world's not all that
big. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a number of big names have
already heard what's going on and said, "No,
thanks".
Why is no of students even in their KPI (if their intention is to
steal ideas)?
Well, like I said, if you're engineering the situation to
result in failure, it makes perfect sense to put in conditions that
you can influence and create problems with, doesn't
it?
What is their plan and how are they going to transform singapore
into a technology hub? (stealing ideas?)
Three words: Suzhou New District. The Singaporean
government, having been burnt in that project, seem to have decided
it was time the shoe was on the other foot.
If stealing ideas is their way forward, why do they need so many
students?
See above in the response about the number of
students.
So, there we have it. Thanks for asking those questions about brand
name - it's allowed me to expand on what I've been saying all this
time. Any other questions?
