A degree is fine but would it have helped Sim Wong Hoo? MY VIEW By SANDRA DAVIE I DO not know if Creative Technology founder Sim Wong Hoo applied for a place at the local universities when he graduated from Ngee Ann Polytechnic in 1975. If he did, my guess is that he would have been rejected. His polytechnic did not reveal his grades -- just that he was not among the medal winners in his year at Ngee Ann. And going by the stringent entry criteria imposed by the two universities, only the top polytechnic graduates would stand a chance. Mr Sim would not have qualified. Herein lies a potential pitfall of the Singapore system. No doubt it is a meritocratic system. But merit is defined very narrowly to mean examination results. Progression through the education system is based entirely on examination results. After O levels, to qualify for a place in a junior college, you need to have an aggregate of not more than 20 points for English Language, a humanities subject, either mathematics or science, and three other subjects. If not, you have to settle for a berth in a polytechnic. But to make it to a non-engineering course in the polytechnic, you must have decent grades in at least five subjects, including English and mathematics. For engineering courses, an applicant would need to do fairly well in at least three O-level subjects -- English, mathematics and science. After A levels, your examination results come into the picture again. Entry points vary from year to year and from course to course but, generally, students need at least three good A-level passes and a pass in English and second language to stand a fair chance of making it to the National University of Singapore and the Nanyang Technological University. For polytechnic diploma-holders hoping to further their education at the local universities, both their O-levels and polytechnic grades count again. It is precisely this definition of merit, necessary, defensible but not without its flaws, that has caused many deserving Singaporeans to fall through the cracks of the education system. Based on figures given by British and Australian universities, there are indeed many Singaporeans who do not make it here every year, only to be rescued by universities abroad. Typically they are polytechnic graduates who had been turned down by the NUS and NTU. But they have a few offers on hand from foreign universities, giving them the chance to complete their degree in half the time -- two years or even one year. They feel that they need a degree as it is a prerequisite minimum to get ahead in Singapore. So they beg or borrow from family members and head overseas. While overseas, they excel, and come back clutching first-class or second-upper degrees. As some of these returned graduates ask rightfully, why weren't they given a shot at university education right here at home? So as we aspire to be a world-class home where every one matters, how can we fix the system so that every Singaporean is given the opportunity to develop to his fullest potential right here at home? Perhaps we should learn from British and Australian universities which have been giving a second chance to Singaporeans rejected by our own universities. In the application forms, they ask polytechnic diploma-holders not only for their examination grades, but also for teachers' recommendations and personal essays. In many cases, visiting academics or alumni members also conduct face-to-face interviews. These universities seem to grasp the fact that there are other indicators of an applicant's potential besides his examination results. True, the universities here have taken some steps to broaden the criteria. Under the new entry criteria that will apply from the year 2003, polytechnic graduates will be admitted based on their O-level and polytechnic grades and reasoning test scores which will make up 25 per cent of the admission score. Our universities should not stick rigidly to this formula. They should use a series of diverse indicators to gauge an applicant's potential. If a student, for example, has poor O-level grades but good polytechnic grades, then the admission panel should perhaps conduct interviews or ask for personal statements to gauge the true potential of an applicant. But broadening the admission criteria is just the first step. Once these deserving students have got through the door, more can be done to make sure that they are given equal chances to excel as any A-level holder. They should be given equal opportunities to compete for places in research programmes and talent-development programmes which are now dominated by students with a string of As. Former Institute of Technical Education student Tan Teck Chuan, who came back from Cardiff University with first-class honours, expressed doubts that he would have done as well at NUS or NTU. He explained that at Cardiff University in Wales, his O-level results and mediocre ITE results did not count. What mattered to his professors was his performance there and then. He was given every opportunity to conduct research and take up projects. NUS and NTU have to give late developers like Mr Tan that chance to excel and not make their poor O-level or A-level scores an indictment for life. No one doubts that examinations are a tried-and-tested way to gauge performance but they should not be seen as the one and only way to determine a person's potential. But while I argue for opening up more routes to the university, Singaporeans must also not treat a university degree as the be-all and end-all of life and as the only prerequisite for success in Singapore. Let's go back to Mr Sim, for example. In many ways, the pioneering technopreneur typifies the kind of Singaporean required for success in a knowledge-based economy (KBE). Just four years after he left the polytechnic, he started a computer training school but he was reported to have lost money in that venture. But with the never-say-die attitude of a true entrepreneur, two years later, in July 1981, he started Creative Technology with just $10,000. Again, there were setbacks. But with the invention of the Sound Blaster in 1989, he never looked back. In August 1992, Creative became the first Singapore company to be listed on the Nasdaq. He had the spirit of enterprise and derring-do that we need in more Singaporeans if we are to succeed. But would Mr Sim have benefited from a university degree? Or would a university education have hindered him? Some like Dr N. Varaprasad, the principal of Temasek Polytechnic, would probably agree with me -- that Mr Sim did not need a university degree. His view is that, ironically, in a KBE, higher degrees may become irrelevant, as employers will value those who can generate new ideas, products or services. This would require a new form of learning which is very continuous and in small, relevant bites. Learning in quanta, like three years, will be outmoded. I agree with a NUS academic who remarked that, thankfully, Mr Sim did not make it to the university. "That would have been a tragedy. He would have probably done very well, graduated with a good degree and got sucked into a top-paying job and we wouldn't have had Creative Technology!" e-mail: [email protected]