This blog is dead. Or so they say.
Apparently, the past few months have been crazy for me - 7 days a week, I practically have stuff to do and no free day for myself. From school, work, housing, essays, pitches, writing papers, meetings, practices and dance performances (yes tinikling), I have been seriously consumed. Ok, I shall not rant any more.
I'm currently in New Orleans for Spring Break, doing a community service trip in Broadmoor and also at the Vietnamese Community in the Eastern part. Although I'm on a community redevelopment trip, this isn't the typical Habitat for Humanity let's-help-build-a-house-or-feed-the-poor trip. What I find special about this trip is that I am able to combine my academic interests in economic development with the work that I do for a week to possibly have a positive impact in the community. So what do I do? For two days, me and another person surveyed the blighted commercial properties and took pictures. Our job is to come up with a catalog of all these properties with a brief write-up about each of them (land size, address, etc) so that the community development council (CDC) can use this to show potential investors and developers. Still working on it right now. Concurrently, the CDC also has several projects in the pipeline: among which are a 20 acre urban farmland, a $10million charter school, and a comprehensive health center. So where do we come in? We are not experts, we are far from it. But in light of the recent stimulus package of the Federal Government, our job is to scrutinize the hundreds of departments and navigate the ovcer 1000 page document to find grants wherein the community can apply for and help fund these projects. I hope that this work of ours can lead to something substantial; if not, it's a good learning experience getting to know the intricacies of the ARRA.
I will blog more about my New Orleans experience and my insights in a more reflective entry next time. In the meanwhile, to whoever follows this blog, I am just throwing up the crazy idea of starting a small non-profit in the Philippines sometime in the future. No, it isn't helping the street children or providing relief goods- there are these needs, but I think I can be of greater help somewhere because of my experiences and also because of my lack of monetary resources to back such financially-heavy projects. How about starting a consulting group/database of the educational opportunities available overseas? We can start with Singapore and the US, forging partnerships with the Filipino ASEAN scholar community and the communities here in the US. Something the less well off can capitalize on by knowing about the different scholarship opportunities out there. Why encourage people to go overseas and not just help fix the education system? I understand this is where some critics may be coming from, but I think we will be able to better tap the resources that we currently have by doing the latter. I shall talk more about it when I am not crouching on a bunk bed at midnight.
Constructive comments/criticisms are always welcome.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
AMERICAN COLLEGES: HOW THEY FARE AGAINST THE WORLD
This is a section taken from the Final Paper I am writing about the Globalization of American Higher Education. Would appreciate it if you can leave comments and constructive criticisms. Thanks.
With the growing competition between America and other countries in higher education exports, there is a compelling desire to examine the arguable superiority of American universities. Britain, once the bastion of higher education in the world, along with Australia and France are among those seeking their share of the global higher education pie. British degrees are now available at Nottingham University’s China and Malaysia campus, and at Liverpool’s Suzhou branch (Thompson, 2006). The French business school INSEAD has been running a Singapore campus, and the Australian Monash
University in Kuala Lumpur attracts talented students from the Asia-Pacific. Like America, Britain and Australia also have English as their lingua franca. This trend means that the competition can also be observed in different home countries as school jostle to attract foreign students.
Perhaps one of the most telling differences between the American system and the rest of the world is its emphasis on breadth over depth. A broad-based curriculum is the staple of American colleges which allows students to explore various areas of knowledge, whereas Commonwealth countries patterned their systems to those of Oxford and Cambridge which encourage specialization. By making students take varying types of classes, there is greater interaction between people of different types of interests, further capitalizing on the diversity of thought that exists on campus. However admittedly, this is a trade-off of a more intellectually-intense interaction between students of a particular major. (Still looking for Cambridge U facts..). Students in British Universities have the chance to explore other areas of study through electives, but they are never required unlike in America’s General Education curriculum. However, American colleges traditionally offer four-year degrees, whereas British programs only take three years to complete, including professional degrees like Law and Medicine which can be taken at the undergraduate level. The immediate specialization offered in British universities is more time-saving and economical, but it really depends on what a particular student prioritizes more.
A wider college selection extended by globalization has made students more mobile, and this can be an insidious trend as Americans want more options for specialized study at home. Although specialized colleges exist in the US like Cooper Union in New York, their number is small compared to those that exist in other countries, and only offer certain programs. Due to this, there has been an increasing number of Americans who are going abroad to pursue their undergraduate degrees (Lewin, Going Off to College for Less (Passport Required), 2008). At Scotland’s prestigious University of St. Andrews, Americans already constitute almost 20% of the student population, a five-fold increase from a decade ago. Opening up the higher education landscape in America to specialized foreign institutions and encouraging the development of home-grown ones would be beneficial as it can cater to the needs of certain college-goers. However, professional programs like Law and Medicine should still be offered only at the graduate level so as to ensure students are better prepared for such socially-crucial vocations. At the end of the day, the American broad-based system is more appealing to students who want the flexibility to change majors and pursue special concentrations; for those who are dead set on reading a particular major, attending more specialized British institutions is more attractive although this comes at the expense of a more diverse interaction with fellow students.
An integral part of any great university is its system of financial management, something that largely determines its lifeline and quality. With better funding come better classrooms, improved research laboratories, more quality faculty, and increased possibility of a lower teacher-student ratio which help enhance the undergraduate educational experience.
“In terms of GDP, the US invests more than twice as much as the UK in higher education, and its major research-intensive universities are among the largest beneficiaries.” (Gill, 2008)
By employing over 70% of the living Nobel Laureates (Ferguson, 2007), there is a very strong research emphasis in American colleges which is dichotomous to the French mandate that all research is only to be done by independent research institutions. Comparing the top American and British colleges, Harvard’s endowment alone is larger than the combined yearly higher education funding in the entire UK (Gill, 2008). Such an anecdotal example shows the disparity between the amount of monetary resources American and British universities have in improving their educational experience.
Nonetheless, top American colleges are generally much more expensive than their foreign equivalents, a ramification of the presence of elite private institutions. Experts like Ferguson have noted that this continuing trend can lead to the downfall of American greatness. Although this indeed is concerning, institutions are making the right choice of trading off cheaper, public education for more expensive private education. Learning from the pages of history from the demise of the German academic superiority to the supplanting of Oxford and Cambridge as the finest in the world, a significant similarity is that government funding and regulations contributed to their downfall as it takes away the institution’s independence in setting policies. As the Oxford Chancellor recently remarked, its tuition fees are set ‘intolerably low’ at £3,140 by the government, a figure even lower than private high school fees. This goes to show how government regulations of the finest universities can limit their greatness and future expansion. Moreover, the basic premise of providing equal access to higher education through nationalizing the school has not been fully realized: in 2007, 58% of applications came from state school pupils although state schools educate 93% of pupils (University of Oxford, 2007). Elite British colleges have long been pushing for privatization to provide long-term sustainability, but the ensuing political backlash has made it hard for politicians to follow through. Even though an American education is dearer, more scholarships and financial aid abound for needy pupils, some of which are extended to international students. In the UK, scholarship amounts are so antiquated that they are merely honorific. Singapore, which has the best education system in Asia, does offer scholarships called ‘tuition grants’, but bonds students three years to the country after graduation. Hence, despite the higher costs of a better quality American education, the presence of such financial assistance is the democratizing factor of private institutions.
Aside from the public and private status differences, the pooling of an American university’s finances has allowed better management of endowments reaping higher returns through economies of scale. On the other hand, the decentralization of financial resources in British universities’ individual colleges has led to lower returns on investments. As some private American colleges suffer financial crises, the concept of responsibility center management has been introduced in the belief that by giving the onus on individual colleges for their economic survival, this would lead to an overall sounder financial management. So far, this practice has been largely successful in turning around schools like the University of Southern California and Indiana University, with administrators keeping in mind to centralize finances at the top to reap economies of scale.
Due to the more prudent financial management structure of American colleges (presence of private colleges and centralization of finances), they are at a better position to improve the educational experience as compared to foreign institutions. However, within the American system, there is a widening gap between the private and public institutions. If left unchecked, this can have serious repercussions on social equity and may breed resentment as about three quarters of Americans attend public colleges. Privatization of some colleges has undoubtedly boosted the quality of American education, however it has to ensure that the public institutions do not lag so far behind by implementing measures that address the wide financial resource differential.
The presence of common standards and increased integration of educational systems in different global regions has been one of the main strengths of foreign institutions. While the SAT is required only by American colleges, the British GCE ‘A’ Level exam is taken by a lot of countries worldwide which serves as a standardized test for British, Australian, and Singaporean universities to name a few. As this test is the culmination of the high school curriculum itself rather than a separate test, it is more convenient for foreign students to take this rather than sign up for the SAT which can be cumbersome. Moreover, the Bologna Process has better standardized academic degrees and quality assurance in the European Union, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) plans to create a similar higher education common space by 2015. Such developments allow easier mobility of students within the region, which is attractive as it provides greater flexibility and choice to experience different systems at minimal transfer costs. Also, such a common space artificially discourages students from leaving the regional system, thereby inducing them to stay. It is in this facet of integration of university systems that America can learn from these foreign entities. It can start incorporating the SAT in the high school curriculums rather than it being a stand-alone test, and market this approach overseas. Keeping in mind the adage “if you can’t beat them, join them”, the US can forge an alliance with such regions but ensuring that it does not lower its own standards in the process. This is a reality that the US has to face with the integration of economic and educational systems.
With the rise of economic powerhouses India and China, naysayers have prognosticated the eventual weakening of American dominance in higher education. They laud how the large pool of talent these countries have can be harnessed to redefine the forefront of science and technology, fueled by the hunger and passion of a developing country. But aside from the educational system per se, the surrounding cultural factors of the countries also affect the quality churned out by the institutions. The high school education systems of both countries are still largely reliant on rote-learning rather than application, so to improve higher education systems there is also the need to revamp the high school curriculum which takes a considerable amount of time. No matter how talented they are, the Chinese students still do not enjoy the same degree of academic freedom as the Americans. The restrictive and tight government control of schools can limit the stimulation of new, intellectual thought. Ditto for Singapore, where this was the main reason why Cambridge turned down the proposal of establishing a satellite campus in the city-state (Thompson, 2006). Great systems take time to perfect as human resources are essential in their success. Presently, only 30% of Chinese university faculty hold post-graduate degrees, partly due to the lack of an academic degree system until the 1980s (Altbach, Chinese Higher Education). As more Western-educated Chinese and Indians return to their homelands, they sure can help spur this new wave of intellectual revolution. But until then, they are still playing catch-up to mighty America.
With the growing competition between America and other countries in higher education exports, there is a compelling desire to examine the arguable superiority of American universities. Britain, once the bastion of higher education in the world, along with Australia and France are among those seeking their share of the global higher education pie. British degrees are now available at Nottingham University’s China and Malaysia campus, and at Liverpool’s Suzhou branch (Thompson, 2006). The French business school INSEAD has been running a Singapore campus, and the Australian Monash
University in Kuala Lumpur attracts talented students from the Asia-Pacific. Like America, Britain and Australia also have English as their lingua franca. This trend means that the competition can also be observed in different home countries as school jostle to attract foreign students.
Perhaps one of the most telling differences between the American system and the rest of the world is its emphasis on breadth over depth. A broad-based curriculum is the staple of American colleges which allows students to explore various areas of knowledge, whereas Commonwealth countries patterned their systems to those of Oxford and Cambridge which encourage specialization. By making students take varying types of classes, there is greater interaction between people of different types of interests, further capitalizing on the diversity of thought that exists on campus. However admittedly, this is a trade-off of a more intellectually-intense interaction between students of a particular major. (Still looking for Cambridge U facts..). Students in British Universities have the chance to explore other areas of study through electives, but they are never required unlike in America’s General Education curriculum. However, American colleges traditionally offer four-year degrees, whereas British programs only take three years to complete, including professional degrees like Law and Medicine which can be taken at the undergraduate level. The immediate specialization offered in British universities is more time-saving and economical, but it really depends on what a particular student prioritizes more.
A wider college selection extended by globalization has made students more mobile, and this can be an insidious trend as Americans want more options for specialized study at home. Although specialized colleges exist in the US like Cooper Union in New York, their number is small compared to those that exist in other countries, and only offer certain programs. Due to this, there has been an increasing number of Americans who are going abroad to pursue their undergraduate degrees (Lewin, Going Off to College for Less (Passport Required), 2008). At Scotland’s prestigious University of St. Andrews, Americans already constitute almost 20% of the student population, a five-fold increase from a decade ago. Opening up the higher education landscape in America to specialized foreign institutions and encouraging the development of home-grown ones would be beneficial as it can cater to the needs of certain college-goers. However, professional programs like Law and Medicine should still be offered only at the graduate level so as to ensure students are better prepared for such socially-crucial vocations. At the end of the day, the American broad-based system is more appealing to students who want the flexibility to change majors and pursue special concentrations; for those who are dead set on reading a particular major, attending more specialized British institutions is more attractive although this comes at the expense of a more diverse interaction with fellow students.
An integral part of any great university is its system of financial management, something that largely determines its lifeline and quality. With better funding come better classrooms, improved research laboratories, more quality faculty, and increased possibility of a lower teacher-student ratio which help enhance the undergraduate educational experience.
“In terms of GDP, the US invests more than twice as much as the UK in higher education, and its major research-intensive universities are among the largest beneficiaries.” (Gill, 2008)
By employing over 70% of the living Nobel Laureates (Ferguson, 2007), there is a very strong research emphasis in American colleges which is dichotomous to the French mandate that all research is only to be done by independent research institutions. Comparing the top American and British colleges, Harvard’s endowment alone is larger than the combined yearly higher education funding in the entire UK (Gill, 2008). Such an anecdotal example shows the disparity between the amount of monetary resources American and British universities have in improving their educational experience.
Nonetheless, top American colleges are generally much more expensive than their foreign equivalents, a ramification of the presence of elite private institutions. Experts like Ferguson have noted that this continuing trend can lead to the downfall of American greatness. Although this indeed is concerning, institutions are making the right choice of trading off cheaper, public education for more expensive private education. Learning from the pages of history from the demise of the German academic superiority to the supplanting of Oxford and Cambridge as the finest in the world, a significant similarity is that government funding and regulations contributed to their downfall as it takes away the institution’s independence in setting policies. As the Oxford Chancellor recently remarked, its tuition fees are set ‘intolerably low’ at £3,140 by the government, a figure even lower than private high school fees. This goes to show how government regulations of the finest universities can limit their greatness and future expansion. Moreover, the basic premise of providing equal access to higher education through nationalizing the school has not been fully realized: in 2007, 58% of applications came from state school pupils although state schools educate 93% of pupils (University of Oxford, 2007). Elite British colleges have long been pushing for privatization to provide long-term sustainability, but the ensuing political backlash has made it hard for politicians to follow through. Even though an American education is dearer, more scholarships and financial aid abound for needy pupils, some of which are extended to international students. In the UK, scholarship amounts are so antiquated that they are merely honorific. Singapore, which has the best education system in Asia, does offer scholarships called ‘tuition grants’, but bonds students three years to the country after graduation. Hence, despite the higher costs of a better quality American education, the presence of such financial assistance is the democratizing factor of private institutions.
Aside from the public and private status differences, the pooling of an American university’s finances has allowed better management of endowments reaping higher returns through economies of scale. On the other hand, the decentralization of financial resources in British universities’ individual colleges has led to lower returns on investments. As some private American colleges suffer financial crises, the concept of responsibility center management has been introduced in the belief that by giving the onus on individual colleges for their economic survival, this would lead to an overall sounder financial management. So far, this practice has been largely successful in turning around schools like the University of Southern California and Indiana University, with administrators keeping in mind to centralize finances at the top to reap economies of scale.
Due to the more prudent financial management structure of American colleges (presence of private colleges and centralization of finances), they are at a better position to improve the educational experience as compared to foreign institutions. However, within the American system, there is a widening gap between the private and public institutions. If left unchecked, this can have serious repercussions on social equity and may breed resentment as about three quarters of Americans attend public colleges. Privatization of some colleges has undoubtedly boosted the quality of American education, however it has to ensure that the public institutions do not lag so far behind by implementing measures that address the wide financial resource differential.
The presence of common standards and increased integration of educational systems in different global regions has been one of the main strengths of foreign institutions. While the SAT is required only by American colleges, the British GCE ‘A’ Level exam is taken by a lot of countries worldwide which serves as a standardized test for British, Australian, and Singaporean universities to name a few. As this test is the culmination of the high school curriculum itself rather than a separate test, it is more convenient for foreign students to take this rather than sign up for the SAT which can be cumbersome. Moreover, the Bologna Process has better standardized academic degrees and quality assurance in the European Union, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) plans to create a similar higher education common space by 2015. Such developments allow easier mobility of students within the region, which is attractive as it provides greater flexibility and choice to experience different systems at minimal transfer costs. Also, such a common space artificially discourages students from leaving the regional system, thereby inducing them to stay. It is in this facet of integration of university systems that America can learn from these foreign entities. It can start incorporating the SAT in the high school curriculums rather than it being a stand-alone test, and market this approach overseas. Keeping in mind the adage “if you can’t beat them, join them”, the US can forge an alliance with such regions but ensuring that it does not lower its own standards in the process. This is a reality that the US has to face with the integration of economic and educational systems.
With the rise of economic powerhouses India and China, naysayers have prognosticated the eventual weakening of American dominance in higher education. They laud how the large pool of talent these countries have can be harnessed to redefine the forefront of science and technology, fueled by the hunger and passion of a developing country. But aside from the educational system per se, the surrounding cultural factors of the countries also affect the quality churned out by the institutions. The high school education systems of both countries are still largely reliant on rote-learning rather than application, so to improve higher education systems there is also the need to revamp the high school curriculum which takes a considerable amount of time. No matter how talented they are, the Chinese students still do not enjoy the same degree of academic freedom as the Americans. The restrictive and tight government control of schools can limit the stimulation of new, intellectual thought. Ditto for Singapore, where this was the main reason why Cambridge turned down the proposal of establishing a satellite campus in the city-state (Thompson, 2006). Great systems take time to perfect as human resources are essential in their success. Presently, only 30% of Chinese university faculty hold post-graduate degrees, partly due to the lack of an academic degree system until the 1980s (Altbach, Chinese Higher Education). As more Western-educated Chinese and Indians return to their homelands, they sure can help spur this new wave of intellectual revolution. But until then, they are still playing catch-up to mighty America.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Thoughts and Insights of 2008
In retrospect, 2008 may have been the most event-filled and exciting year of my life thus far. I guess it is only befitting as it was the year that I turned 21. From teaching JC students to getting that acceptance letter, I believe these are once-in-a-lifetime experiences which I will forever be grateful for having (unless I pursue the teaching vocation). It was also a year in my life where I realized one very important thing, something my family always stressed since I was young: the importance of traveling. I believe education doesn't stop in the classroom; it extends to one's travels too. From managing the slopes of Tahoe, Nevada to walking the bustling streets of Manhattan, I learned so many things about life - about the American culture, about how my living preferences help shape my ambitions, about how different immigrant stories are in the US from those in Asia. Ditto for my KL trip, where the 5-hour luxurious bus ride gave me a chance to reflect on my 4 and a half years in Singapore, and get ready to bid farewell to the hundreds of people I have crossed paths and befriended during my stay...and in KL I was able to spend time with two of my best friends, perhaps for one last time. Coming to the United States made me appreciate some wonders of Singapore, but also opened my mind to its shortcomings and even flaws which I wouldn't have seen from the inside.
But it was also a year of questions, some even unanswered to this day. Being privileged enough to have the best possible education, does it necessitate a new obligation to one's fellowmen? And when I say fellowmen, they don't necessarily refer only to the Filipinos. I have never really seriously considered entering politics before, but coming to Harvard made me rethink my self-purpose. Can I say that this is one of the beauties of a Harvard education? Maybe, but sometimes, having that brand name associated to you can be annoying and sometimes dispiriting too. I didn't know that rat and mice are of different species, didn't know who Thomas Friedman was (don't give me crap and tell me all of you know who this guy is - it's Thomas, not Milton.)...such lack of knowledge can lead to awkward situations here in school. Even when you're somewhere else, people around you always expect you to be really good and be always on your feet..well, it can give you feel-good moments, but sometimes you just want to be yourself and chilax. Sadly, you may not always have that choice. But that being said, we are all still humans, we all have our wants, dreams, and silliness too.
On a lighter note, before coming to Harvard I attended the Last Lecture. I was fascinated by how the late Randy Pausch told us about his childhood dreams, and made me think of mine. There are two things I so badly want to do in life: be a basketball coach/player, and be a CIA secret agent. For the first one, maybe I'm a step closer as I have finally set foot on an NBA arena, an arena of the world champions. Maybe a few more years and I'll be able to be courtside and eventually be on the hardwood. I remember I would always tell Hong Quan that I am still in the process of applying for the CIA scholarship, but haven't had the chance to fill in the application yet because you have to be smart enough to find it. Watching the movie The Recruit fueled my dreams even more, although I know it is kinda out of this world.
Indeed, the experiences I had in 2008 changed the course of my life and influenced my aspirations. People grow, people change, hopefully for the better. And I'm glad to say that I did.
But it was also a year of questions, some even unanswered to this day. Being privileged enough to have the best possible education, does it necessitate a new obligation to one's fellowmen? And when I say fellowmen, they don't necessarily refer only to the Filipinos. I have never really seriously considered entering politics before, but coming to Harvard made me rethink my self-purpose. Can I say that this is one of the beauties of a Harvard education? Maybe, but sometimes, having that brand name associated to you can be annoying and sometimes dispiriting too. I didn't know that rat and mice are of different species, didn't know who Thomas Friedman was (don't give me crap and tell me all of you know who this guy is - it's Thomas, not Milton.)...such lack of knowledge can lead to awkward situations here in school. Even when you're somewhere else, people around you always expect you to be really good and be always on your feet..well, it can give you feel-good moments, but sometimes you just want to be yourself and chilax. Sadly, you may not always have that choice. But that being said, we are all still humans, we all have our wants, dreams, and silliness too.
On a lighter note, before coming to Harvard I attended the Last Lecture. I was fascinated by how the late Randy Pausch told us about his childhood dreams, and made me think of mine. There are two things I so badly want to do in life: be a basketball coach/player, and be a CIA secret agent. For the first one, maybe I'm a step closer as I have finally set foot on an NBA arena, an arena of the world champions. Maybe a few more years and I'll be able to be courtside and eventually be on the hardwood. I remember I would always tell Hong Quan that I am still in the process of applying for the CIA scholarship, but haven't had the chance to fill in the application yet because you have to be smart enough to find it. Watching the movie The Recruit fueled my dreams even more, although I know it is kinda out of this world.
Indeed, the experiences I had in 2008 changed the course of my life and influenced my aspirations. People grow, people change, hopefully for the better. And I'm glad to say that I did.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
My Top 10 Moments for 2008
The top 10:
10. Snowballing at Harvard!
9. Skiing at Tahoe
8. KL Trip
7. March 7.
6. Winter Break at San Jose
5. New York City Trip
4. Siblings Visit and our first Celtics game
3. Aug 7-11 Singapore Trip
2. April 1 - the email and the pranks
1. Relief Teaching!
10. Snowballing at Harvard!
9. Skiing at Tahoe
8. KL Trip
7. March 7.
6. Winter Break at San Jose
5. New York City Trip
4. Siblings Visit and our first Celtics game
3. Aug 7-11 Singapore Trip
2. April 1 - the email and the pranks
1. Relief Teaching!
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
New York
So this is what New York is after all. The bright lights, the tall skyscrapers, the vibrant energy, the indefatigable spirit. During Thanksgiving weekend, I had the chance to experience all these in the Big Apple, the center of the world (among all the places I have been to in my entire life, I can say that it indeed deserves the moniker). We went to the usual suspects: Times Square, Broadway, Maddam Tussad's museum, the United Nations, Wall Street, Ground Zero, NBA Store, Rockefeller Plaza, Fifth Avenue, Battery Park to view the Statue of Liberty, Trump Towers, M&M Store, Giant Toys R Us, and the best McDonalds in the world (seriously, the one in Times Square was just awesome... I must say it is better than a lot of the restaurants and cafes I have been to - with the interiors, music and ambience) What made it fun was the fact that we had to plan our itinerary, with our friends from New York suddenly unable to bring us around due to unforeseen circumstances.
To boot, when we wanted to check in in the hostel at 1130pm, WE WERE TURNED DOWN BECAUSE WE DIDN"T HAVE PASSPORTS OR STATE IDs. During Opening Days we were told the Harvard ID can get us places, and do magical stuff for us, but apparently that night it did us no good. So, in the middle of Harlem at 1130pm on Black Friday, we made calls just like the Obama campaign doing phone banking to countless hostels in New York City. Call after call we got rejected. We started contemplating on where to sleep that night: the subway, the airport, or just a McDonalds. Haha luckily in the end after about an hour we finally found one in Times Square. So we traveled across town to our hostel, and retreated to our beds around 1230... excluding the talking cock of course.
Too lazy to post pics again. So here is a link to my facebook photo album.
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=62937&l=7f425&id=620781495
To boot, when we wanted to check in in the hostel at 1130pm, WE WERE TURNED DOWN BECAUSE WE DIDN"T HAVE PASSPORTS OR STATE IDs. During Opening Days we were told the Harvard ID can get us places, and do magical stuff for us, but apparently that night it did us no good. So, in the middle of Harlem at 1130pm on Black Friday, we made calls just like the Obama campaign doing phone banking to countless hostels in New York City. Call after call we got rejected. We started contemplating on where to sleep that night: the subway, the airport, or just a McDonalds. Haha luckily in the end after about an hour we finally found one in Times Square. So we traveled across town to our hostel, and retreated to our beds around 1230... excluding the talking cock of course.
Too lazy to post pics again. So here is a link to my facebook photo album.
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=62937&l=7f425&id=620781495
Saturday, November 22, 2008
A Singapore Education: My Perspective
Today I received an email from a friend asking me to describe my Singapore educational experience. I replied with an email with a short description of my experience... Nevertheless, this is what prompted me to candidly blog about my perspective of the Singapore educational experience. There might be politically unpopular statements that I would make, but I say all these in good faith, just to convey my OPINION.
Background
I was offered an ASEAN Scholarship in 2003 to study Secondary 3 and 4 (3rd & 4th yr high school) and 2 years of junior college (they have this 2 year thing in between high school and college). This is a bond free-scholarship, which brings me to my first point. People back home thought that my relief teaching for half a year was my 'bond', but it actually wasn't. I didn't need to work, although I felt a very compelling urge to give back (thus I did RT in my own school, instead of relaxing or accepting a better paying job somewhere else).
A few months ago, someone actually asked me if Singapore 'wasted their investment' on me. What did/can I contribute to them if I leave after JC and head somewhere else? Well, this I must say: it wasn't a wrong investment, and I believe they were already prepared that some of the scholars they recruit would end up taking this path. Some people contribute during their 4 years - by diversifying perspectives in school, raising standards, improving their image, increasing the level of competition. Others can contribute later on, or even continue to contribute, after their 4 years by continuing college in Singapore, getting a job, settling down there eventually. Plus the fact that whether one is in Singapore or somewhere else, one can be the country's goodwill ambassador - worth more than any advertisement put up by the Tourism or Education Board. Because of the various stages where the scholars contribute, and knowing that it would be best to have scholars contribute in each category, I believe (note, this is only a personal hypothesis) the MOE recruits scholars of varying abilities. As they say, the best team may not always be the best people put together. So I think this analogy holds in their selection process too.
The Most Important Thing I Learned in Singapore: (I compare their 'importance' on their usefulness and on whether I could have learned them if I stayed back home - in short, the value add of going to Singapore compared to the Philippines... there are a lot of important stuff, but I could have learned them too in the Philippines... gets?)
Learning more about the world - from books, teachers, talks, newspapers, friends
The single most important and useful subject I have taken thus far is the General Paper. Yes, I believe that people who do well in the General Paper definitely have great potential and ability; but the converse isn't true - people who don't do well in GP may still be very capable and smart. Doing well in the General Paper requires one to be articulate in his arguments, know the facts (since mostly are world issues, one has to be well-read), and be able to link various things together and see their nuanced connections. Whether debating about the most essential quality of a politician, assessing the state of the environment, considering the cases where capital punishment is justifiable, examining the link between violence and media, or simply talking about the future of one's own country, this subject made me think broadly and about the most important issues that I may not have considered in my dining hall conversations. I think this is a subject that will be really beneficial to students when applied to other countries like the Philippines. However, other subjects like Social Studies, Geography and History made me aware of the world too. Switzerland's economy, Venice's rise and fall, Hong Kong's public housing, conflict between ethnicities and religions all over the world, The Great Leap Forward, Ruhr Republic, Malayan Independence, Singapore healthcare and population policies, etc.
That being said, I also learned a lot from my conversations with classmates and friends - about their personal experiences in their homeland, their views on the current and future state of their countries. These perspectives help shape my understanding of the dynamics of international relations - something I was quite ignorant of before going to Singapore. I understood how these stories impacted their lives, and the lives of their countrymen and how it shaped their present culture. From the stories of friends who had to hide during the Indonesian Riots because they might get raped or beaten up simply because they were Chinese, to the Malaysians' version of the separation between Spore and Msia, I had a better understanding on where these people were coming from. Thanks to my subscription of Newsweek in JC, (self-praise is no praise but an international disgrace, as what my friends jeremy and ashvin always tell me whenever I praise myself..but still, im just being candid)I have become so much aware of the happenings of the world. I read the magazine almost every week, and sometimes from cover to cover - except when it's Iraq and Afghanistan, i tend to skip. But if you want to subscribe to know more about the world, in hindsight I suggest Time. It's much better than Newsweek. That being said, having access to these materials made me sound smarter (or really smarter, i dont wish to conclude) during discussions with the group or with individuals during interviews. Yes, I own a large part of my general knowledge to these factors and resources that I had access to in Singapore. This was perhaps the most important thing I acquired, much more important than the math formulas or the organic chem equations...
this piece may not be very 'flowy' as I am writing this as a spur of the moment thing... next time, i shall write about another aspect of the Singapore education... maybe academics... or something else totally not about singapore education... have a nice weekend everybody..
(PS. Harvard trashed Yale today 10-0)
Background
I was offered an ASEAN Scholarship in 2003 to study Secondary 3 and 4 (3rd & 4th yr high school) and 2 years of junior college (they have this 2 year thing in between high school and college). This is a bond free-scholarship, which brings me to my first point. People back home thought that my relief teaching for half a year was my 'bond', but it actually wasn't. I didn't need to work, although I felt a very compelling urge to give back (thus I did RT in my own school, instead of relaxing or accepting a better paying job somewhere else).
A few months ago, someone actually asked me if Singapore 'wasted their investment' on me. What did/can I contribute to them if I leave after JC and head somewhere else? Well, this I must say: it wasn't a wrong investment, and I believe they were already prepared that some of the scholars they recruit would end up taking this path. Some people contribute during their 4 years - by diversifying perspectives in school, raising standards, improving their image, increasing the level of competition. Others can contribute later on, or even continue to contribute, after their 4 years by continuing college in Singapore, getting a job, settling down there eventually. Plus the fact that whether one is in Singapore or somewhere else, one can be the country's goodwill ambassador - worth more than any advertisement put up by the Tourism or Education Board. Because of the various stages where the scholars contribute, and knowing that it would be best to have scholars contribute in each category, I believe (note, this is only a personal hypothesis) the MOE recruits scholars of varying abilities. As they say, the best team may not always be the best people put together. So I think this analogy holds in their selection process too.
The Most Important Thing I Learned in Singapore: (I compare their 'importance' on their usefulness and on whether I could have learned them if I stayed back home - in short, the value add of going to Singapore compared to the Philippines... there are a lot of important stuff, but I could have learned them too in the Philippines... gets?)
Learning more about the world - from books, teachers, talks, newspapers, friends
The single most important and useful subject I have taken thus far is the General Paper. Yes, I believe that people who do well in the General Paper definitely have great potential and ability; but the converse isn't true - people who don't do well in GP may still be very capable and smart. Doing well in the General Paper requires one to be articulate in his arguments, know the facts (since mostly are world issues, one has to be well-read), and be able to link various things together and see their nuanced connections. Whether debating about the most essential quality of a politician, assessing the state of the environment, considering the cases where capital punishment is justifiable, examining the link between violence and media, or simply talking about the future of one's own country, this subject made me think broadly and about the most important issues that I may not have considered in my dining hall conversations. I think this is a subject that will be really beneficial to students when applied to other countries like the Philippines. However, other subjects like Social Studies, Geography and History made me aware of the world too. Switzerland's economy, Venice's rise and fall, Hong Kong's public housing, conflict between ethnicities and religions all over the world, The Great Leap Forward, Ruhr Republic, Malayan Independence, Singapore healthcare and population policies, etc.
That being said, I also learned a lot from my conversations with classmates and friends - about their personal experiences in their homeland, their views on the current and future state of their countries. These perspectives help shape my understanding of the dynamics of international relations - something I was quite ignorant of before going to Singapore. I understood how these stories impacted their lives, and the lives of their countrymen and how it shaped their present culture. From the stories of friends who had to hide during the Indonesian Riots because they might get raped or beaten up simply because they were Chinese, to the Malaysians' version of the separation between Spore and Msia, I had a better understanding on where these people were coming from. Thanks to my subscription of Newsweek in JC, (self-praise is no praise but an international disgrace, as what my friends jeremy and ashvin always tell me whenever I praise myself..but still, im just being candid)I have become so much aware of the happenings of the world. I read the magazine almost every week, and sometimes from cover to cover - except when it's Iraq and Afghanistan, i tend to skip. But if you want to subscribe to know more about the world, in hindsight I suggest Time. It's much better than Newsweek. That being said, having access to these materials made me sound smarter (or really smarter, i dont wish to conclude) during discussions with the group or with individuals during interviews. Yes, I own a large part of my general knowledge to these factors and resources that I had access to in Singapore. This was perhaps the most important thing I acquired, much more important than the math formulas or the organic chem equations...
this piece may not be very 'flowy' as I am writing this as a spur of the moment thing... next time, i shall write about another aspect of the Singapore education... maybe academics... or something else totally not about singapore education... have a nice weekend everybody..
(PS. Harvard trashed Yale today 10-0)
Friday, November 21, 2008
The Game
Field trip
Taking a look back as Harvard and Yale meet for the 125th time
By Emily T. Simon
For well over a century, Harvard and Yale have gone head-to-head at the end of November for the epic football match known simply as “The Game.” The contest is steeped in history and tradition, not just for the undergraduates who take to the field but also for the thousands of students and alumni who descend on campus to cheer for their beloved schools. This year, crowds will be celebrating a special milestone: 2008 marks the 125th playing of The Game.
The rivalry — the oldest in college football — began on Nov. 13, 1875, when Harvard and Yale met at Hamilton Field in New Haven. The game was played according to rugby rules. Harvard, dressed in crimson shirts and knee breeches, won 4-0. In 1898, it was determined by both teams that The Game should be the final match on the football schedule, and it has remained that way ever since. The match alternates between Soldiers Field in Allston and the Yale Bowl in New Haven.
Victory, defeat, triumph, heartbreak — Harvard and Yale have known them all in their years of play. As of November 2007, Yale has won 65 matches, Harvard has won 51, and the teams have tied eight times.
A few games, however, have made a special mark on the history books. The match in 1894 was so brutal that newspapers reported seven players carried off the field in “dying” condition, and the schools suspended athletic competition for two years. In 1954, Harvard obtained its 500th win by beating Yale 13-9, at home.
One of the most fabled games took place in 1968. Both teams went into the match with a perfect 8-0 season. On the Harvard line was a senior offensive tackle who would later go on to gain Hollywood fame as an Academy Award-winning actor: Tommy Lee Jones. The Elis took charge early, leading 22-0 by the second quarter. Desperate to recover, the Harvard coach put in junior Frank Champi, a fourth-string QB. Though Champi had made just five completions the entire season, he seemed to work magic. A few perfect passes by Harvard and a series of fumbles by Yale brought the score to 29-13, with less than 10 minutes remaining. The clock wound down, and the Crimson kept driving. In the final 42 seconds, Harvard scored two touchdowns, bringing the score to 29-27. With no time left on the clock, Harvard went for the two-point conversion and scored to tie the game. The next day’s headline in the Harvard Crimson told the whole story: “Harvard Beats Yale, 29-29.”
The 2005 Game will also be remembered for a brilliant Harvard comeback. The Crimson trailed 21-3 at the beginning of the second half. With less than 15 minutes to go, defensive back Steven Williams ’08 returned an interception 18 yards for a touchdown. Williams’ play set off a rally that kept the Crimson in fighting form. They forced the game to three overtime sessions, before finally claiming victory 30-24. It was the longest game in Ivy League history.
The football field isn’t the only place where the Harvard-Yale rivalry gets played out on Game weekend. Beginning with a pep rally on Thursday night, the Harvard campus turns Crimson as undergraduates show Elis the true meaning of school spirit. Several student organizations welcome their Yale counterparts for a tête-à–tête: at the annual Harvard-Yale Football Concert, for example (held in Sanders Theatre Friday night before the game), the Harvard and Yale Glee Clubs perform fight songs in college regalia and try to drown one another out before the finale. The Immediate Gratification Players, an improvisational comedy group, compete for laughs against improv troupes from Yale.
Undergraduates may keep the rivalry heated, but it wouldn’t be Game Weekend without the thousands of alumni who come to support their alma mater, reconnect with old friends, and enjoy a few days back on campus. Their lavish tailgates and spiffy dress set the example for current seniors, who — whether they can believe it or not — will find themselves entering the “Alumni” section of the tailgate in just one year.
A special tradition for alumni is the waving of the “Little Red Flag,” a small cloth banner embroidered with an “H.” The flag was originally carried by Frederick Plummer, Class of 1888, who brought it to the game as a token of good luck. It was rediscovered by William Bentick-Smith ’37 in 1950, who suggested the honor of waving it be given to the Harvard fan who had seen the most Yale games. Nine men have since waved the little banner, though the number of Yale games viewed is no longer the primary determinant.
At its inception, the Harvard-Yale Game was just two teams on a small field in Connecticut. Now, it is a landmark in the history of undergraduate sport and a storied tradition for the men and women of Harvard and Yale.
Taking a look back as Harvard and Yale meet for the 125th time
By Emily T. Simon
For well over a century, Harvard and Yale have gone head-to-head at the end of November for the epic football match known simply as “The Game.” The contest is steeped in history and tradition, not just for the undergraduates who take to the field but also for the thousands of students and alumni who descend on campus to cheer for their beloved schools. This year, crowds will be celebrating a special milestone: 2008 marks the 125th playing of The Game.
The rivalry — the oldest in college football — began on Nov. 13, 1875, when Harvard and Yale met at Hamilton Field in New Haven. The game was played according to rugby rules. Harvard, dressed in crimson shirts and knee breeches, won 4-0. In 1898, it was determined by both teams that The Game should be the final match on the football schedule, and it has remained that way ever since. The match alternates between Soldiers Field in Allston and the Yale Bowl in New Haven.
Victory, defeat, triumph, heartbreak — Harvard and Yale have known them all in their years of play. As of November 2007, Yale has won 65 matches, Harvard has won 51, and the teams have tied eight times.
A few games, however, have made a special mark on the history books. The match in 1894 was so brutal that newspapers reported seven players carried off the field in “dying” condition, and the schools suspended athletic competition for two years. In 1954, Harvard obtained its 500th win by beating Yale 13-9, at home.
One of the most fabled games took place in 1968. Both teams went into the match with a perfect 8-0 season. On the Harvard line was a senior offensive tackle who would later go on to gain Hollywood fame as an Academy Award-winning actor: Tommy Lee Jones. The Elis took charge early, leading 22-0 by the second quarter. Desperate to recover, the Harvard coach put in junior Frank Champi, a fourth-string QB. Though Champi had made just five completions the entire season, he seemed to work magic. A few perfect passes by Harvard and a series of fumbles by Yale brought the score to 29-13, with less than 10 minutes remaining. The clock wound down, and the Crimson kept driving. In the final 42 seconds, Harvard scored two touchdowns, bringing the score to 29-27. With no time left on the clock, Harvard went for the two-point conversion and scored to tie the game. The next day’s headline in the Harvard Crimson told the whole story: “Harvard Beats Yale, 29-29.”
The 2005 Game will also be remembered for a brilliant Harvard comeback. The Crimson trailed 21-3 at the beginning of the second half. With less than 15 minutes to go, defensive back Steven Williams ’08 returned an interception 18 yards for a touchdown. Williams’ play set off a rally that kept the Crimson in fighting form. They forced the game to three overtime sessions, before finally claiming victory 30-24. It was the longest game in Ivy League history.
The football field isn’t the only place where the Harvard-Yale rivalry gets played out on Game weekend. Beginning with a pep rally on Thursday night, the Harvard campus turns Crimson as undergraduates show Elis the true meaning of school spirit. Several student organizations welcome their Yale counterparts for a tête-à–tête: at the annual Harvard-Yale Football Concert, for example (held in Sanders Theatre Friday night before the game), the Harvard and Yale Glee Clubs perform fight songs in college regalia and try to drown one another out before the finale. The Immediate Gratification Players, an improvisational comedy group, compete for laughs against improv troupes from Yale.
Undergraduates may keep the rivalry heated, but it wouldn’t be Game Weekend without the thousands of alumni who come to support their alma mater, reconnect with old friends, and enjoy a few days back on campus. Their lavish tailgates and spiffy dress set the example for current seniors, who — whether they can believe it or not — will find themselves entering the “Alumni” section of the tailgate in just one year.
A special tradition for alumni is the waving of the “Little Red Flag,” a small cloth banner embroidered with an “H.” The flag was originally carried by Frederick Plummer, Class of 1888, who brought it to the game as a token of good luck. It was rediscovered by William Bentick-Smith ’37 in 1950, who suggested the honor of waving it be given to the Harvard fan who had seen the most Yale games. Nine men have since waved the little banner, though the number of Yale games viewed is no longer the primary determinant.
At its inception, the Harvard-Yale Game was just two teams on a small field in Connecticut. Now, it is a landmark in the history of undergraduate sport and a storied tradition for the men and women of Harvard and Yale.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)