Just to share something I posted on SMU LMS Micro discussion forum

I have a proposition that midterms should only be held after week 7. From the perspective of current students, it might be a little too late to even bother thinking about this. However it is precisely because the midterms are over that it is appropriate to post this in case this issue somehow snowballs.

So before I go any further, let's have some common understanding about the significance of the midterms. Usually it is a significant component % of the overall grade> Hence it is important to do well, if not don't screw up, or the consequence could be disastrous when you get back the final grade.

However, do think for a moment. Can you avoid the bad consequence, or at least significant avoid it, if the midterms were to be held in week7 or before?

The answer is yes. Knowing you did very badly for the exam (e.g. through discussing questions with friends after the test), you can choose to withdraw from the module to avoid getting C or below.

Assuming perfect knowledge(not too far off from reality since in many instances you can roughly guage how well you did relatively), those who form the bottom bell curve will have a huge incentive to drop the module if they are concerned about their GPA. If they do, adverse selection occurs. Those who remain in the class are the more competitive; The bell curve shifts adversely. If the prof does not have a min. cap of grades for once decent but now relatively poor performers (e.g. meaning the curve is really belled from C to A, with the comparatively lowest scoring student guaranteed a C no matter how well his raw score is), the new group of people who form the bottom bell curve will have an increased incentive to drop the class. And this creates an issue of fairness for the remaining students.

Also, with people dropping classes, it necessarily means resources were not allocated optimally. The class size could have been larger if there was a benefit of foresight to know the exact number of people who drop the class. And for the people who dropped the class, they had wasted their first 7 weeks of time studying for the module.

Of course, probably you don't see many of such instances in SMU. Because most of the time not everyone knows that a) The bottom bell curve has dropped the class. And so consequently b) Few people dropped the class, the bell curve does not shift as much for you to care and you will not have the incentive to drop anyway.

But from my personal experience, it has happened on a significant scale before. Nearly 10 people from my MFE class dropped the mod after the midterms. The size of the class shrinkage is probably because econs students are well... more economical. I was one of the unfortunate ones who do not know about point a) during that time to act on it.

Then you could argue, didn't the students who dropped the class on week 7 benefit? It could be a zero-sum. But I disagree. Having midterms on week 7 or before creates a moral hazard. One can choose not to study for the midterms and hope for the best. In the event that one does well, he/she had not learnt as much as should have been. And if the event that one does badly, he/she will drop the class. However, by having midterms after week 7, the incentive to study harder becomes stronger and the educational system will produce students who are more knowledgeable.

I know I have a somewhat extreme take on this issue but any thoughts?

Knowledge @ SMU. 面白い

Since the end of exams, I've been catching up with.. yea friends but more like the uh.. The Economist. It is a great read for anyone with the stomach for analysis and an interest in current affairs. But that aside.

Recently, I chanced upon this website: http://knowledge.smu.edu.sg/ while looking through my emails. Far from the boring and inapplicable research papers I was expecting, the site is host to many articles and topics I find interesting.

For one, I learnt that money can increase happiness but only up to a certain point (S$8000/month) before it tapers off.
Source: http://knowledge.smu.edu.sg/article.cfm?articleid=1326
This is important because most of us pursue happiness. Amongst other factors, happiness is a function of how much we consume and how much leisure we have. However, there's always a tradeoff between the amount of consumption(based on income you earn which depends on working hours put in) and the amount of leisure spent(which is just based on the amount of free time you have). Now the graph makes the relationship clearer and offers a precise amount before diminishing returns for consumption sets in strongly. But I guess for now, further analysis of this data is useless for me because firstly, I am not working. Secondly, I can't even begin to talk about sacrificing leisure to earn $8000/mth as this is simply out of my personal production possibility frontier. For the moment, the strategy is to work like crazy and earn as much as I can.

Moving on to the next article, I looked at how stereotypes affect us. Source: http://knowledge.smu.edu.sg/article.cfm?articleid=1262
While OBHR textbooks stressed that negative stereotypes damage performance of employees who are stereotyped, it did not occur to me that positive stereotypes could actually enhance performance of individuals. Pretty cool stuff I thought. So if you are from a group or culture that is stereotyped to do well, make sure you remind yourself of your superiority before putting yourself to any test.

What makes an economics student?

Am so glad to have finished the last exam for Semester 1. However, one question that comes to mind after the Macroeconomics exam is: Do I really know what macroeconomics is about?

The syllabus of SMU Economics focuses a lot on the quantitative aspects. And so at the same time, we cover very in depth into some of the graduate materials. For example, we are taught how a growth in technology leads to an increase in effective labour force in the Solow growth model. Other very contemporary concepts include the IS-MP / AD-IA models on employment, interest rates and inflation.

Though the SMU syllabus is strong in maths, it is not matched by the breadth of the macroeconomics syllabus it covers (at least for the lessons I attended). The lessons do not look at, or at least not in detail, the Phillips curve, lorenz curve, gini coefficient, IS-LM (I am like wtf is it when friends from other Economics courses were talking about it). And hey I am sure there are many other macro concepts out there that I do not know of.

So... given that I know almost nothing about all the traditional areas of Economics, what makes an Economics student an Economics student? I have really no idea. One argument I came up with to explain the scope of SMU syllabus is this.

Economics evolve rapidly over time.

Theories in this field do not remain the same. Thus, what was learnt 20 years ago becomes obsolete now and what is learnt now will become useless in the future. Unless I am setting the interest rates of Singapore now, the contemporary models I learn will only serve to become part of the syllabus of Economics history by the time I graduate. So, there is more value in learning the process of learning Economics models- maths is a great tool to be used for analysis. The professors here are teaching exactly that. SMU students get equipped with the skill sets relevant to analyse future Economics models through the lens of Mathematics.

But hey wait... I do not know if I am experiencing self-serving bias as I try to justify the use of learning the quantitative side of Economics. Indeed, sometimes I do feel that I am not really an Economics student as I lack the confidence to tell non-Economics students about all the macroeconomic theories (because I am too specialised into just a few concepts!).

Nevertheless, there is not much point in learning everything anyway. In the future, whatever job I do, except if I become a professor/teacher in Economics, the knowledge learnt will probably not be used. Well, then what is the use of studying? As said by Mankiw, professor of Harvard University, "Your math courses are one long IQ test. We use math courses to figure out who is really smart." So that's the point.

~Study break for finals~

Exams are just around the corner. Atm I am flipping through notes after notes, opening slides after slides and practicing many times past exam papers. I can't really tell if what I am writing is making sense right now because I am quite mentally drained already.

For my fans, I apologise for the shoddy post this time. Will do a better job after my last paper on the 30th!

Let's strive towards achieving the maximum A+ this semester.

I need more time! Or do I?

The past week has been especially grueling. Deadlines for reports, assignments and presentations are getting closer by the day. While barely surviving, I still need to find time to select and bid for the next semester's modules. How I wish I have more time to do things.

However, I do not believe in fretting about what cannot be changed. Let me analyse what can be done with what scarce resource I have. Every person has 24 hours a day to work with. Out of which, the hours are allocated between sleep, work and play. And it is noted that one can't spent more time doing things than the available amount of time.

Time on hand <= Hours spent sleeping + Hours spent working + Hours spent playing

When work is urgent and pressing, play will automatically be sacrificed. All humans are mortals. They can lose some sleep but never not sleep.

Thus, during crunch time,
Time endowment (24hr/day) <= Sleep + Work

It does not make sense to stay idle doing nothing. For a rational person, the above equation holds with equality.

24 Hours = Sleep + Work (a.k.a all the time is spent either sleeping or working)

A survey with friends in similar positions turns out the following result. They sleep between 4 to 6 hours a day. Although they would enjoy sleeping more, they much rather not sleep at all and work through the night to complete the tasks at hand. They can't sleep less because 5 hours (average between 4h and 6h) of sleep seems to be the minimum requirement for human beings. Any less sleep = zombie in the day

24 Hours = 5 Hours + Work. This means time allocated to work is 19 hours a day.

And our physics teachers taught us that Work done = Power * Time.
Here, Work done = Power * 19h. Time is now a constant that cannot be changed.

To increase the amount of work done, to complete all the assignments, homeworks and projects, the only way is to increase the power (or efficiency of working).

Now, how many times in a day do you stare at the computer screen, blanking out and not doing productive work? How much time is spent sipping and taking your own sweet time to finish a cup of coffee while work remains undone in front of you? And how much time, while working, is spent thinking how life would be better if there isn't so much work, if there's more time, if giving up is possible. All these leads to reduction in the efficiency of doing work.

However, not everyone can be a robot and work day in day out non-stop. But just a little more focus during times of low productivity can go a long way.

Did SMU break the psychological contract?

Singapore Management University (SMU) is renowned to have one of the best university admission marketing campaigns. Since its inception in early 2000, it has grown from just a few hundred to a few thousand students. Moreover, the grade cutoff is rumoured (I have strong reasons to believe so from talking to students from year 1 to 4) to be rising every year. For now, anything below an A level result of A,B,B will likely put you off the radar of SMU recruitment.

Then I wonder. Why does more and more students, at the same time more and more brighter minds, opt for SMU? SMU is neither as well-established as NUS and NTU nor fully accredited. Well, many students believe they are able to obtain a double degree and perhaps a double major before graduation in 4 years. Also, with so much hype surrounding the marketing blitz, it seems to offer exactly what students want. Come to SMU if you want to earn multiple degrees/majors AND have an enjoyable and fun university life.

Having seemingly promised much, many undergraduate students sensed a breach of psychological contract upon admission. The psychological contract represents the mutual beliefs and informal obligations between the student and the school. Students feel they are working all the time and have no time for fun. Complaints of having too many projects, presentations and school work surface all the time.

To be fair to SMU, it indeed allows its students a good chance to obtain and/or a double degree/double major. And yes even both are possible to be achieved in 4 years. However, the catch is that more modules have to be taken per semester in order to complete the requirements in the desired amount of time. Then, SMU also offers its students plenty of chances at areas of leadership (You can lead a CCA, an OCIP, this and that initiative etc) and areas of competitions (e.g. case competitions, business plans). Students dream of these even before entering SMU.

Hence, students are increasingly juggling between many aspects of school life. Little wonder they do not have as much free time for leisure as they wish. To make matters worse, competitions between students are highly visible. Compulsory class participation pits students against one another every lesson. Projects are done so frequently such that the average standard can only increase. To catch up with the trend will imply putting in additional effort. Furthermore, everything is gauged against the bell curve. It doesn't matter that what you are doing in absolute terms is sufficient. You will be deemed not as competent and undeserving of the 'A' grade if your peers outshines you. Fiercer competition ensues.

However, is there really a break in the psychological contract? Personally, I feel that SMU definitely can do better to highlight the above situations to potential students so they know exactly what to expect. Last time I checked, NUS chemical engineering students are also working as hard as SMU students. The same comparison goes between a NTU accountancy student vs a SMU student. For a more extreme example, NUS medicine students are studying when SMU students are. And they are also studying when SMU students aren't! To be assured, their amount of work is no less daunting than the combined fearsomeness of SMU's projects and syllabus. Yet, with same or less amounts of work, there are SMU students who complain. Much of this has to be attributable to the difference between the expected and the reality.

Despite arguing that SMU indeed broke this contract, I still think that some of the pain is self-inflicted. Why do SMU students want to take 5 modules when it is possible also to take 4 modules per semester? Why do they want to spend so much time on the project in making a video and a skit?

All these in pursuit of excellence. I agree it is a good thing to be aiming for. Nevertheless, do think about the fun and pleasures in life that are forsaken in the great chase for GPA and resume. For life could have been a lot easier. And it is not others but the individual students who determine their own experiences in school.

Commandment 1: ♠ Listen

Mentioned in the last post, the SMU module (Leadership and Teambuilding), a.k.a LTB, allowed me to meet great friends and create fruitful videos. At the same time, it set me thinking on many interpersonal skills and characteristics - of which I have internalized some of them. Nevertheless, there are some points which I disagree on and I thought it would be worthwhile sharing one of them.

Coaching feedback is the recommended form of feedback. It involves giving feedback to the intended audience without criticism. This is to prevent the listener from 'walling up' and also unlike criticism, it does not strain the relationship between the sender and the receiver of the feedback. To note, coaching feedback does not mean sugar-coating the words. Despite not putting down the listener, the points to be conveyed are direct. Thus, criticism is not to be used at all as coaching feedback is superior.

However, is everyone fully capable of giving coaching feedback? I am not so sure as apparently 80% of SMU students failed to attain at least an 'A-' grade for Management Communication. Moreover, coaching feedback requires conscious effort to rephrase sentences in a manner suitable for coaching feedback and even then, for the less skillful communicators, the impact of the main points would be lost. Most people would criticize as it is more natural to do so when sending across messages.

So, having the above knowledge, I started penning down my thoughts. To put things in a simpler format, I came up with a few graphs for illustration.



No one likes criticism. In fact, the more a person is criticised, he/she will be increasingly less receptive as criticism entails some form of personal attack. Curve A reflects this and curve B depicts a person more able to take criticism.



As pointed out, using coaching feedback, people who are not as adapt will not be able to fully put across the message. Curve A shows this while curve B depicts a person who has good mastery in communication skills.



Then, the total amount of actual feedback received by a person is given by the information transmitted minus the resistance to criticism. Curve A shows this and curve B depicts a person with higher tolerance to criticism.

To sum everything together:



I would like to be like the person as shown in curve B. As shown in diagram 3, he is able to garner greater feedback. This can allow him to tap more on the opinions of everyone around him, and in so doing, improve his own capabilities. Moreover, he is able to do feedback without criticism though admittedly to achieve this, it will require practice and training. This takes significant effort to achieve.

On the other hand, it does not seem so difficult to attain what that person does with respect to diagram 1. The magic word here is just to listen. When you pay more attention to what people say about you rather than defend yourself from the negative opinions of others, you slow down the process of stonewalling. It also helps open up your mind to absorb the valuable feedback which otherwise would have been lost. More importantly, people will come to view you as being accepting to differing opinions and will be more willing to come to you again to offer fresh perspectives. What a way to gather insights for free!

Here's how 'Listen' made it to the top of my four commandments.

Sowing the seeds of kindness

Follow up: Theory on mate seeking
After the previous post, I received comments such as 'You think are you Sheldon Cooper?'
(FYI, he's a a fictional character in The Big Bang Theory. More info on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Cooper.)

To that question, the answer is no.
1. I ain't that smart
2. There's no reason for me to think I am.

Personally, I like to make sense of my surroundings and if there aren't already explicit explanations, I'll make attempts to derive them. For the single guys and ladies, the previous post is merely a model only representative of the average population. In reality there's high variances and I acknowledge the many other factors involved. 所谓天涯何处无芳草. There's many chances out there.


Project Kind Kids: Spreading the words of kindness



The educational video was made for the purpose of spreading the message of kindness to the public, aimed especially at children during their formative years. Together with songs and dance, this was launched on 12 March 2010 at PCF Telok Blangah Centre. It was well received and Singapore Kindness Movement will be using them as part of its educational materials. I am really happy and touched because it is my first project done in SMU that has created a positive impact on the society at large. Great job and kudos to my LTB friends. Without them, this and other videos: "Kindness @ Public", "Kindness @ Home" and "Kindness @ Play" would not have been possible.

More information: http://kindnessatschool.blogspot.com/2010/04/big-cause-for-little-kids.html

Theory on mate seeking: Comparisons of time preference for guy vs girl

I used to wonder if it is good to be single. This is an important question to me because I have never been attached. Extrapolating the data from my 22 years of history, based on fore-casted trajectory using root min squared methods, with a R^2 of 100%, undoubtedly I am heading towards monk-hood. Thus, if having a girlfriend and getting married are important, I definitely should be doing something about it to deviate from this path.

Till now, I have yet to figure if the outcome of being attached/married is better than staying single. However, being a guy and staying single, I certainly feel that something is amiss. - There's a void in my heart that needs to be filled :(.

I know this very well but of course, we shouldn't jump to any conclusion based on emotions alone. Since I do not know if having the other half or staying single is the better option, my choice for now is to remain status quo and to bid for time while figuring this out. But is time on my side?

With my limited economics knowledge, I started building a model that reflects reality. In this modeled world, for simplification, there exists only one time period where everyone is of the same age. There's a mix of males and females who have differing attractiveness. The attractiveness index reflects individual qualities and characteristics (having a better quality = being more attractive). Of course, those who are more attractive have a higher probability to attract a mate of the opposite gender. Assume everyone is rationale and also assuming one can choose only mates he/she attracts. The result, unsurprisingly, showed that more attractive girls tend to be attached with more attractive guys and vice versa. Further iterations of the simulation shows that the more attractive people have an increasing probability to get attached. And that means the unattached people consists of people, who on average, are less and less attractive.

If my model is correct, that implies 2 harsh realities.

1. I am unattractive (and have lousy qualities) and hence single.
2. I better hurry up and get attached before all the opposite gender who are still available are the ones with lousy qualities.

Hey wait, I can't accept this as the truth. That's too damaging to my ego and personal outlook.

I started thinking...

During army days, I borrowed a book on relationships from Eddy, my fellow BX driver. This book is written by Allan and Barbara and if I remember correctly, it states the following.

What men look for:
1. Personality
2. Good looks
3. Brains
4. Humour
5. Good body

What women look for:
1. Humour
2. Brains
3. Status/Wealth
4. Personality
5. Looks

Or somewhere along the lines of these rankings. The important aspect I saw is that guys value looks and body way higher than girls do. And the stuff that girls look for in guys are less of the outward appearance stuff.

Given the above knowledge, let's examine and analyse how time plays a part in this.

Beauty - It is common knowledge that as one grows older, one becomes less physically attractive due to ageing.
Personality - On the other hand, a person's behaviour does not change much over time as shown by OBHR research.
Brains - It can be possible that a person grows smarter over time but again research has shown that a person's IQ remains fairly constant over time.
Humour - Subjective stuff but again this is pretty much related to personality.
Status/Wealth - This is usually something that you can accumulate and grow over time.

So... holding humour/brains/personality constant, in the eyes of a man, woman depreciates in value over time as she loses her beauty. Man, on the other hand, appreciates in value as he grows in wealth and status.

EUREKA! Time is on my side. I will get more highly valued as the years go by.

With this knowledge, I began to build 2 period, 3 period and higher period in to my model. In the eyes of females, males of older periods become more attractive; older males are able to attract the available females who are more attractive from all the time periods. Given that the average attractiveness of available females falls over time (due both to the fact that beauty declines over time and also because the more attractive females are taken up), a rational male will tend to pick females of younger age. Conversely, a younger female will, oh well. You deduce on your own.

Thus, a person's age is less important a factor for a male than a female if he/she wants a mate. So now I know. I can wait :D.

Now you know why the blog is empty

This blog used to be updated weekly, largely based on events that happened around me when I was still in full-time National Service. However, because a close friend got charged for posting restricted stuff on his blog, I panicked and took this blog down, with everything permanently deleted.

That marked the end of my blogging career, at least for a while. With that said though, please stay tuned as I may get inspired to blog again.