Examine the stone

This phrase is going to be very popular : Leave no stone unturned. Some stone turning is already being done. I’m referring to the scrapping of the banding exercise for schools or what used to be called the Schools Ranking exercise. I am all for lifting stones but I’d suggest we look at the original reasons for the stone being there in the first place.
So what was the rationale for the ranking exercise way back in 1992? If I recall correctly, it was to help parents pick a school for their children and to spur schools to do better. The template I believe was the British ranking of schools done by a British newspaper. In fact, the literature at that time was all for ranking of schools, so that teachers would be aware of what else needed to be done in class to raise the school rankings. I suppose in the typical Singaporean way, it became ultra competitive and new stuff was added along the way, like bands instead of ranks, various versions of “value-added’’ schools and then awards. Some of it made sense. I mean, some schools pipped others by such insignificant percentage points that ranking became meaningless.
Then top schools started skipping O levels because of the through train programme and the list got shorter….
I think we should give ourselves some credit for having school rankings instead of now moaning and groaning about how it has led to such stressful lives for everyone. I am quite sure, for example, that the exercise DID push all schools to do better academically. So knowledge is acquired, and tested.
I am for scrapping of ranking and banding, because my view is that we have achieved what we set out to do. That’s my layman’s point of view anyway.
My hope is that in this national conversation we are supposed to be having, we won’t just go hooooo-ha because some sacred cow has been slaughtered. Let’s be clear about WHY it is a sacred cow in the first place and whether those reasons still hold

Rich list; poor list; good list

Whenever I see a “rich” list, I feel so, so poor.

My eyes glaze over the names of the usual banking, property types to pick out new names. Who are these fellows? Foreigners, or rather ex-foreigners, and some very Singaporean brand names, like Hotel 81 and Sheng Siong, this time round. Oops! I mean their founders. Interesting that BT and Today went with headlines that said The rich got richer – by 9 per cent. So…that’s the income divide fully manifested! ST buried it somewhere in the bowels of the story.

It’s great that rich foreigners have decided to become citizens and sink their lot here. Even better to see the Hotel 81 and Sheng Siong bosses get into the list. So we can all aim to be like those Singapore entreprenuers and not depend on “family” money to be in the ranking.

What’s also interesting is how the Forbes ranking gave some details of their philantrophic deeds – especially in education. Go buy BT. I suppose this provides some leavening. If you are so rich, there will be people who ask what you are doing with all that money. Churlish I suppose. You make your money, you can decide what to do with it. Except that with all that concern over income inequality, it seems in pretty bad taste to simply hoard it for your heirs.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if there was a “poor” list instead. I guess that would be political unacceptable  and explosive. There will be complaints that the ranking method is wrong (you don’t  really hear this about  a rich list) and a lot of hand wringing and calls to do more for them. I wouldn’t feel so so rich reading a poor list. I will just feel so so bad.

I wish there was an annual Philantrophy list. I know that there are various awards given to donors and the good people. But they are varied, scattered and even ad hoc.  I want to know how those people who have benefited from being part of this place are giving back, whether in terms of their brain power or money. Will this be too onerous for our rich people? Pressuring them to give? By the way, I don’t care if they are doing it for tax purposes. Nor do I  care if this starts a race among top donors or foundation founders or scholarship boards. Better, I think, than Lim Chong Yah’s formula to cut the wages at the  top and give to the bottom. In this case, if you have extra, then give.

Let’s have a “good” list.

It would dampen the politics of envy. And make me feel so so much better.

Not-so-robust rankings

The trouble with rankings is this: they are a dime a dozen, We make a big deal when we come up trumps and lament or argue when we are not, or have slipped a few places. Really, with so many think tanks, research firms and all sorts of consultancies coming out with rankings on happiness, products, service, tourist attractions, standard of living or what have you, which set of figures are we supposed to believe?

It all boils down to the credibility of the study and the people behind them; how the study is done and who is being surveyed. Sometimes rankings of one study appear to conflict with another similar one, and then you find out that there are one or two parameters that are different. Sometimes you realise that the survey is too small, the people surveyed are too narrow a group or worse, a group that would give a conclusion that is forgone. I mean, if you survey only business class travellers, then those airlines which actually treat economy class passengers as, well, passengers, might well be passed by.

The reader gets bombarded by one ranking or other almost every day – it’s like a staple newspaper item. I suppose  Singapore being Number 1 in whatever category gives us a sense of satisfaction. We can even start feeling smug. Banks, companies and PR firms flood the newsrooms with news of their rankings and awards as well – particularly if they are Number One. But before any unwary reader gets that wonderful feeling, the hope is that someone has done the work on whether the news is worth touting in the first place. Or is this some hackneyed research by some people hoping to get into the news…

Which is why I am puzzled by the Quacquarelli Symonds survey of universities in ST today. Thing is, its credibility is being questioned. It’s only two-years old. A newbie in the university ranking game. I wonder how the communications and media studies of NUS and NTU fared the last/first time the survey was done. NUS is now No. 3 and NTU at 23. Knowing past results would at least be a gauge of how seriously to treat this survey. I mean, maybe NUS was No. 23 and NTU was third….

What is the point of getting the university spokesmen on this matter? The higher placed one will support the ranking and the lower placed one would argue against. One expert said the better list to use is Shanghai Jiaotong University’s list, which uses publicly measurable research performance. Perhaps, before a survey, particularly a new one, makes it into print, a neutral expert or two should be called upon to advise on its credibility, and its publish-ability.