One thing which we can learn from this example is also to see how he pitch himself. He is in Oxford and Princeton doing East Asian stuff, Chinese studies at Oxford and East Asian Studies in Princeton. That is a good positioning … his chance is likely to be more diminished if he is attempting to study English Literature or Shakespeare studies in Oxford.
So I think an important lesson is also how to place and project yourself. You can try for the most competitive aspect, or create a niche for oneself.
Although I also read with interest fell_bat's comment on why you find this piece inspirational and encouraging ... I mean this piece read together with the other piece commenting on the limitation of "elite school" eduction, it appears that on one hand, you are gald that elite school education isn't the be all and end all of all things (which is rightly so), but on the other, you are using going into Oxford and Princetion as a measure of success. To be a ultra-cynic for a moment, what so great about a Chinese educated Chinese (he do Higher level in "A" level) doing well in Oxford in Chinese studies?? The recent blog entries does give the impression that you have a love-hate relationship with elite/top schools and also your NUS education experience. But I am not saying that it is bad or anything, especially since I have such conflicting view of certain aspects of my NUS experience as well. In a sense I understand the rationality of certain rejections I faced in NUS law school, and also know how I should do to get by and move around these rejections, but ya, still can't help but feel a little angst and aggrivement at the thought of it at time as well.
But you're not quite right there. I don't think Oxton (since I'm lazy to type Oxford & Princeton out) is a measure of success in its own right (ie: getting into Oxton means attaining godhood or something).
Rather, I see it as a measure of success for LWG in his own right, an honor that is finally conferred upon him and something that recognizes the sheer genius of his mind.
Where IL schools (Ivy League) are concerned for me, it definitely isn't a love-hate relationship, it's about trying to see things in perspective. It's about understanding the limitations and possibly dangers of going into one (I still expect my kids to go to IL schools in future :p The issue for me then is - what can I then do as a parent to teach my child to 'top up' to the experience he/she will have that an IL school cannot prepare adequately for).
Another thing I disagree with is this "what so great about a Chinese educated Chinese (he do Higher level in "A" level) doing well in Oxford in Chinese studies??" - I think you fail to recognize his genius in this aspect, he is more than jsut a "Chinese educated Chinese". Apparently he is better than the average grad student at Princeton, it definitely takes more than just being "Chinese educated" to be among that elite few!
A thought lingering at the back of my head recently is that, I honestly don't see much differences between the so-called elite of our education system and "others" at least from a work perspective.
My industry isn't one that hires hoards of IL graduates (unlike I-banking/consulting). Yet in my direct work place, it's not like I feel like I'm surrounded by idiots or anything, I feel like I learn alot from them. (In fact I feel like I'm getting pwned by their knowledge, experience and know-how!)
I share your angst and aggrievement and I'll admit the encouraging aspect of this article stemmed from my own time at NUS. It's quite a love-hate thing, love the people, hate the place. As I expalined to the_fell_bat it's about understanding that people who didn't make it good (defined in whatever way they choose) can still make it good, and in such great ways later on.
It doesn't mean that those who have failed the system will become big-wigs in their future fields, but it means that they possibly can. Maybe not to LWG's extent (but then again his so-called initial failures are pretty gargantuan too, from a Singaporean's perspective) but something decent I'm sure.
Eh... regarding the Chinese thingy... I think penguin is making a very valid point.
You see similar things happening in the field of academia. Asians go Oxford, even if they're better than the ang mohs at say, 18C English Lit, they won't get positions, the ang mohs will get. But talk about postcolonialism, Asian literature -- we rule the field! More or less anyway.
So I missed this point the first time round, actually -- Wah Guan's doing Chinese studies, and as penguin points out it's really good *positioning* on his part. Doesn't necessarily take away from any evaluation of his talent, but I think we have to recognize, it's actually to be expected that he'd outperform the ang mohs *in this particular well-chosen field*.
It's all ang mohs doing grad studies in Princeton meh?
But even so it doesn't make the earlier points we discussed less valid. But OK even if WG pwned the ang mohs cos he's Wah Guan, not William Graham, the fact that he could still get into Oxton is still a feat in itself.
I mean, I'm sure other Chinese educated folks have applied to Oxton as well but didn't get in?
The point, which you missed when you say "I'm sure other Chinese educated folks have applied to Oxton as well but didn't get in?" is the "Chinese educated" is in relation to the course he is applying to. It would be an incredible feat for him to be above-average among Princton grads student for ENGLISH LITERATURE or EUROPEAN STUDIES. But he is there for CHINESE STUDIES (Oxford) and EAST ASIANS STUDIES. Honestly, he is more of an achievement to be an above average grad student in the National Taiwan University for East Asisan Studies or Chinese Studies.
He could well competing with people who cannot even speak Chinese in the Princeton classes of East Asian Studies (in US, they study these East Asian studies in English, which means if you can understand the East Asian languages, you have a tremendous edge with access to much more research materials and resources)
You say "Apparently he is better than the average grad student at Princeton, it definitely takes more than just being "Chinese educated" to be among that elite few!"
Why does being in Princeton equates to the elite few? Why does being in Princeton means the guy's "sheer genius" is recognized? Is it because they recognize talents differently from NUS and thus have to be better?
That's the interesting contradiction you seem to give. On one hand, you are confident (or try to project confidence) that just because you did not follow the well-beaten path of acedamic pursuit(i.e. do honors or go "prestigous" schools such as Oxford/Harvard etc like your many other scholars friends) doesn't mean you are inferior or less piosed for success. However, on the hand, your other blog entries still suggest you have an inherent awe about these prestigious schools and that if someone can do well in it (especially after doing badly or not doing NUS), then it is proof that NUS sucks and failed to recognize true talent. The question is, why is being in Princenton means that there is true talent.
Firstly, dude I'm quoting from the article about being "a part of the elite few"
Secondly, you're getting personal.
Thirdly, you're muddling things up and seem to want to see things in a black/white dichotomy.
While it's true that not everyone in an IL school is necessarily talented, does it mean that people who get in must get in by some stroke of luck and hence IL schools are poor gauges of one's ability? You should know how competitive getting into an IL school is. NUS on the other hand isn't really that hard to get in. This alone is some basis of comparison for academic ability (a major part includes test taking skills) at least.
I don't like NUS for a variety of reasons, and not because I didn't do as well as I would have liked to do it because they didn't recognize my "true talent". If I had been helped by the system but still did not do as well as I would like to have I would have respected it for at least trying to help me improve myself.
And yes I may not be as academically successful as some of my friends are, but I still maintain that I can still develop myself in other ways beyond academics to become successful in life.
On the other hand, having studied abroad before I do believe that being in an IL school can be a better experience than just studying in Singapore. Both have its pros and cons and my previous article posted I felt expounded on the cons of an IL pretty well.
To summarize, it is a huge huge shame for NUS that they let a guy such as this slip out from the system. Yes he may have been Chinese-educated and hence had an advantage over his peers @ Princeton, but this does not make him 'less good'. Someone who has good genes and is a faster runner than his peers may have had 'that natural advantage' but it doesn't make him less of a great runner. Even if you want to nitpick on that point, at least the fact htat he coudl still get into a very hgihly competitive program and win the accolade of his professors says something at the very least.
The article was encouraging in teh sense of showing that people who have had such catastrophic failures in Singapore can still go on to shine in their resspective niches too. It doesn't mean that someone who got Fs in Econs thorughout NUS will suddenly become the next Ben Bernanke. But it means that maybe the system here just wasn't that usited for you but hey - take heart.
Actually, on the personal part, it is more of just following up on fell-bat's comment, and just posing some thoughts, so gonna drop it.
But just a few points.
"You should know how competitive getting into an IL school is. NUS on the other hand isn't really that hard to get in." Well, it is easy to get in for us because we are Singaporean who have been to good JCs. It is considered very hard to get in for people in Poly-technics and those in not-so-good JCs. And I don't know, having applied to IL schools, I am not really sure is it that hard for foreigners to get in, especially with the economic benefits we bring.
"To summarize, it is a huge huge shame for NUS that they let a guy such as this slip out from the system." Well, we all knows that people develope with time, especially when at the age of 18 to 25. I mean, you are a very different person 6~8 years ago, and arguably a better and improved person (which you are still constantly improving). And he was not like rejected by NUS and got accepted by Oxford. He was rejected by NUS, and accepted by some Austrialia university. He could well be a person who did not work very hard at that thime. Then, most likely he have some self-improvement, work hard, and wola, create new opportunities for himself and get into Oxford. Can't see anything shameful about NUS not accepting him in the first place. It would be shameful if after the Austrialia education he applied to Oxford and NUS but NUS reject him, though that does not appear to be the case.
BUT, i agree with "The article was encouraging in teh sense of showing that people who have had such catastrophic failures in Singapore can still go on to shine in their resspective niches too." Though it is not a particular respect to Singapore. One can always bounce back from failures, whether in US, Singapore or otherwise.
So I think an important lesson is also how to place and project yourself. You can try for the most competitive aspect, or create a niche for oneself.
Although I also read with interest fell_bat's comment on why you find this piece inspirational and encouraging ...
I mean this piece read together with the other piece commenting on the limitation of "elite school" eduction, it appears that on one hand, you are gald that elite school education isn't the be all and end all of all things (which is rightly so), but on the other, you are using going into Oxford and Princetion as a measure of success. To be a ultra-cynic for a moment, what so great about a Chinese educated Chinese (he do Higher level in "A" level) doing well in Oxford in Chinese studies??
The recent blog entries does give the impression that you have a love-hate relationship with elite/top schools and also your NUS education experience. But I am not saying that it is bad or anything, especially since I have such conflicting view of certain aspects of my NUS experience as well. In a sense I understand the rationality of certain rejections I faced in NUS law school, and also know how I should do to get by and move around these rejections, but ya, still can't help but feel a little angst and aggrivement at the thought of it at time as well.
Reply
But you're not quite right there. I don't think Oxton (since I'm lazy to type Oxford & Princeton out) is a measure of success in its own right (ie: getting into Oxton means attaining godhood or something).
Rather, I see it as a measure of success for LWG in his own right, an honor that is finally conferred upon him and something that recognizes the sheer genius of his mind.
Where IL schools (Ivy League) are concerned for me, it definitely isn't a love-hate relationship, it's about trying to see things in perspective. It's about understanding the limitations and possibly dangers of going into one (I still expect my kids to go to IL schools in future :p The issue for me then is - what can I then do as a parent to teach my child to 'top up' to the experience he/she will have that an IL school cannot prepare adequately for).
Another thing I disagree with is this "what so great about a Chinese educated Chinese (he do Higher level in "A" level) doing well in Oxford in Chinese studies??" - I think you fail to recognize his genius in this aspect, he is more than jsut a "Chinese educated Chinese". Apparently he is better than the average grad student at Princeton, it definitely takes more than just being "Chinese educated" to be among that elite few!
A thought lingering at the back of my head recently is that, I honestly don't see much differences between the so-called elite of our education system and "others" at least from a work perspective.
My industry isn't one that hires hoards of IL graduates (unlike I-banking/consulting). Yet in my direct work place, it's not like I feel like I'm surrounded by idiots or anything, I feel like I learn alot from them. (In fact I feel like I'm getting pwned by their knowledge, experience and know-how!)
I share your angst and aggrievement and I'll admit the encouraging aspect of this article stemmed from my own time at NUS. It's quite a love-hate thing, love the people, hate the place. As I expalined to the_fell_bat it's about understanding that people who didn't make it good (defined in whatever way they choose) can still make it good, and in such great ways later on.
It doesn't mean that those who have failed the system will become big-wigs in their future fields, but it means that they possibly can. Maybe not to LWG's extent (but then again his so-called initial failures are pretty gargantuan too, from a Singaporean's perspective) but something decent I'm sure.
Reply
You see similar things happening in the field of academia. Asians go Oxford, even if they're better than the ang mohs at say, 18C English Lit, they won't get positions, the ang mohs will get. But talk about postcolonialism, Asian literature -- we rule the field! More or less anyway.
So I missed this point the first time round, actually -- Wah Guan's doing Chinese studies, and as penguin points out it's really good *positioning* on his part. Doesn't necessarily take away from any evaluation of his talent, but I think we have to recognize, it's actually to be expected that he'd outperform the ang mohs *in this particular well-chosen field*.
Reply
But even so it doesn't make the earlier points we discussed less valid. But OK even if WG pwned the ang mohs cos he's Wah Guan, not William Graham, the fact that he could still get into Oxton is still a feat in itself.
I mean, I'm sure other Chinese educated folks have applied to Oxton as well but didn't get in?
Reply
The point, which you missed when you say "I'm sure other Chinese educated folks have applied to Oxton as well but didn't get in?" is the "Chinese educated" is in relation to the course he is applying to. It would be an incredible feat for him to be above-average among Princton grads student for ENGLISH LITERATURE or EUROPEAN STUDIES. But he is there for CHINESE STUDIES (Oxford) and EAST ASIANS STUDIES. Honestly, he is more of an achievement to be an above average grad student in the National Taiwan University for East Asisan Studies or Chinese Studies.
He could well competing with people who cannot even speak Chinese in the Princeton classes of East Asian Studies (in US, they study these East Asian studies in English, which means if you can understand the East Asian languages, you have a tremendous edge with access to much more research materials and resources)
Reply
Why does being in Princeton equates to the elite few? Why does being in Princeton means the guy's "sheer genius" is recognized? Is it because they recognize talents differently from NUS and thus have to be better?
That's the interesting contradiction you seem to give. On one hand, you are confident (or try to project confidence) that just because you did not follow the well-beaten path of acedamic pursuit(i.e. do honors or go "prestigous" schools such as Oxford/Harvard etc like your many other scholars friends) doesn't mean you are inferior or less piosed for success.
However, on the hand, your other blog entries still suggest you have an inherent awe about these prestigious schools and that if someone can do well in it (especially after doing badly or not doing NUS), then it is proof that NUS sucks and failed to recognize true talent. The question is, why is being in Princenton means that there is true talent.
Reply
Secondly, you're getting personal.
Thirdly, you're muddling things up and seem to want to see things in a black/white dichotomy.
While it's true that not everyone in an IL school is necessarily talented, does it mean that people who get in must get in by some stroke of luck and hence IL schools are poor gauges of one's ability? You should know how competitive getting into an IL school is. NUS on the other hand isn't really that hard to get in. This alone is some basis of comparison for academic ability (a major part includes test taking skills) at least.
I don't like NUS for a variety of reasons, and not because I didn't do as well as I would have liked to do it because they didn't recognize my "true talent". If I had been helped by the system but still did not do as well as I would like to have I would have respected it for at least trying to help me improve myself.
And yes I may not be as academically successful as some of my friends are, but I still maintain that I can still develop myself in other ways beyond academics to become successful in life.
On the other hand, having studied abroad before I do believe that being in an IL school can be a better experience than just studying in Singapore. Both have its pros and cons and my previous article posted I felt expounded on the cons of an IL pretty well.
To summarize, it is a huge huge shame for NUS that they let a guy such as this slip out from the system. Yes he may have been Chinese-educated and hence had an advantage over his peers @ Princeton, but this does not make him 'less good'. Someone who has good genes and is a faster runner than his peers may have had 'that natural advantage' but it doesn't make him less of a great runner. Even if you want to nitpick on that point, at least the fact htat he coudl still get into a very hgihly competitive program and win the accolade of his professors says something at the very least.
The article was encouraging in teh sense of showing that people who have had such catastrophic failures in Singapore can still go on to shine in their resspective niches too. It doesn't mean that someone who got Fs in Econs thorughout NUS will suddenly become the next Ben Bernanke. But it means that maybe the system here just wasn't that usited for you but hey - take heart.
Reply
But just a few points.
"You should know how competitive getting into an IL school is. NUS on the other hand isn't really that hard to get in."
Well, it is easy to get in for us because we are Singaporean who have been to good JCs. It is considered very hard to get in for people in Poly-technics and those in not-so-good JCs. And I don't know, having applied to IL schools, I am not really sure is it that hard for foreigners to get in, especially with the economic benefits we bring.
"To summarize, it is a huge huge shame for NUS that they let a guy such as this slip out from the system."
Well, we all knows that people develope with time, especially when at the age of 18 to 25. I mean, you are a very different person 6~8 years ago, and arguably a better and improved person (which you are still constantly improving). And he was not like rejected by NUS and got accepted by Oxford. He was rejected by NUS, and accepted by some Austrialia university. He could well be a person who did not work very hard at that thime. Then, most likely he have some self-improvement, work hard, and wola, create new opportunities for himself and get into Oxford. Can't see anything shameful about NUS not accepting him in the first place. It would be shameful if after the Austrialia education he applied to Oxford and NUS but NUS reject him, though that does not appear to be the case.
BUT, i agree with "The article was encouraging in teh sense of showing that people who have had such catastrophic failures in Singapore can still go on to shine in their resspective niches too." Though it is not a particular respect to Singapore. One can always bounce back from failures, whether in US, Singapore or otherwise.
Reply
Leave a comment