aerasio

random rambling

Consider this; a Singaporean boy has just taken his PSLE. He didn't really study for it mainly because he didn't really like studying. I mean, who really does like studying at the age of twelve. He's a smart kid. He can solve sums if he puts enough effort into it, knows enough science to tell you there are mainly three states of matter and whatnot. He can speak Chinese and English well enough, but let’s face it, at this stage in his life, he doesn't really care. In his mind, he hates school, detests going through it everyday and can't wait to get out so he can run home and watch Dexter's Laboratory or play Starcraft. So he takes his PSLE, and amid high hopes manages to get a halfway decent aggregate score of 239. His parents aren't thrilled; they had pretty high hopes for him. They're not poor, they're not rich either, but they are willing to do whatever they can to get the Best for their son. However, obviously their son wasn't as motivated as they were. Dreams of schools like Hwa Chong and Raffles Institution are washed down the drain. The parents sigh and console themselves with Fairfield Methodist Secondary. Its got a good reputation, and I suspect has no more problems than any other secondary school in Singapore. The ultimate goal is of course, the parents hope, for their son to be a big fish in a small pond. They dream he will work hard and be the top student and redeem himself in a prestigious Junior College, like Raffles or Victoria. After all, if their friend's son who also went to Fairfield could do it, their son could too right? Those were the best schools that anyone could go to. A Rafflesian has his future made, or so the common folk believe. These schools are the dream of the people, the pinnacle of a Singaporean education, every child-loving Singaporean parent hopes his or her child will be a part of these institutions, and who can blame them? They are the heaven the peasantry cannot reach, the preserve of the modern day aristocracy. Those who are within this inner elect are forever marked by society as a breed set above the rest. They are the ones who 'have the makings of greatness'. Or do they?

Consider another boy. His parents were not so lenient with him. They drove him to study everyday. When he wasn't in school, he was at tuition. His family was rich, and they put their fortune to use, employing a tuition teacher for every subject and drilling their son mercilessly in the mastery of these subjects. Formulae and exam smart techniques were discussed and then memorized. Characters and equations swallowed whole. At the end of it, they had a son who had no commitments save one, to mug his guts out and get himself into Raffles Institution, who keeps friends from Primary School anyway? Their son is no Einstein, but his hard work pays off and he makes it in. Upon entrance however, he discovers that there is no time to slack. The rigors of being in Singapore's top institution are upon him and being less brilliant than other Rafflesians, he slogs his guts out for four years just to be on level ground with the others. He works harder than ever before if anything, but he's used to it now. Who needs friends when they have grades to worry about? He emerges a social outcast, the mama's boy who runs home after school to study everyday. Dad's friends remark about such a lovely obedient and industrious boy. Classmates laugh at the nerd. It’s alright though, because he is going to get a perfect score at the O'levels, get into RJC and eventually ship himself off to a World Class University like Harvard or Princeton, he'll show everyone then, 5 or 10 or even 20 years down the road, but he'll show em. He dreams then, of swaggering into a reunion party as a billionaire CEO, a sleek black BMW in the parking lot, a hot model on his arm and a wallet decked out with platinum cards. Perfection! Who needs friends when you have all that?

Consider this hypothetical contest. Assume then (just bear with me now) that the first and second boy are of equal intelligence (assuming that such a thing can be measured). Assume further that success is measured monetarily and materialistically an thus can be decided in a simplistic "his college is ranked higher than your college" kind of comparison. Which boy do you think will go further? Let’s put the start point at the O'level examination. Who do you think will do better?

A: the unmotivated and (lets face it) downright lazy boy who probably has a healthy social life but is merely an average student.

Or?

B: the boy born with a silver spoon in his mouth, who went through the pressure pot and came out a lean, mean studying machine but was (as it would appear, probably unfairly, in this very biased analogy) for all intents and purposes and emotional husk.

Probably B.

Of course, all of this is subjective and I can't really prove any of it, but still, aren't we being encouraged to sell our souls for monetary advancement? What is the price that our so-called meritocracy imposes on us?

(Shrugs) who's to say?

So said Aerasio at 11:38