Sosc185 Essay

Does our education system allocate people into different occupational roles according to their differential talents?

Education systems are generally perceived to assist the youth in preparation for their future careers by equipping them with the essential skills and knowledge that would be needed in workplace. Especially in Hong Kong society, people generally regard education as a proper and almost the only route for upward social mobility. They generally share a common value that one should exert more effort upon his or her studies in order to secure a better, higher rewarding occupation or career in the future.

In the field of sociology, professionals such as Emile Durheim, Talcott Parsons, Davis and Moore, have also raised that education systems provide individuals with specific skills, and is an important mechanism in the selection of individuals for future occupational roles in society in part of their theory (Haralambos, 692-695).

While it may seem logical for a relationship to exist between occupational roles, education and talents, there are far more factors that may prove this to be untrue.

One may be able to improve his or her social status through attaining high academic achievement and qualification within the system and securing a highly rewarding, “brand named” career like a doctor, lawyer, or accountant, thereby, climbing up the social mobility ladder. However, whether there is a definite relationship among one’s academic achievements in an education system, his or her talents, and future occupational roles are subjected to a lot of questioning.


In this essay, I will try to discuss the low effectiveness of Hong Kong’s education system on occupational roles allocating according to differential talents. And I am going to analyze the issue from four different angles.

First, I will inspect Hong Kong’s education system in terms of its narrow curriculum and popularity of certain type of schools, which explain why Hong Kong’s education system cannot fully explore one individual’s talents, thereby, concluding that Hong Kong’s education system are not able to place persons into different occupational roles according to their individual talents.

Second, I will inspect Hong Kong’s education system in terms of its mode of operation. Arguing that the classification of students according to their different abilities would greatly hinders the development of each individual student’s talent to achieve its greatest potential, while the overemphasis on class organization and social relationships also makes individual development more ambiguous.

Third, I will inspect Hong Kong’s education system in terms of its uneven resource allocation among different levels of schooling (i.e. primary, secondary, and university), which help explain why Hong Kong’s education system does not function well in placing persons into different occupational roles according to their talents.

By examining Hong Kong’s education system from the above three dimensions, we can see that talents of individuals cannot be fully identified and well developed under the system. Therefore, it is not appropriate to say that our education system does allocate people into different occupational roles according to their differential talents.

Lastly, I will try to approach the issue from a more sociological, social-economic perspective, by examining how differences in one’s social status can greatly influence the levels of academic attainment and how one’s academic achievements and qualifications may not necessarily be a true reflection of one’s talents, but rather, a by-product of social stratification.

Owing to the above reasons, we can conclude that our education system does not function efficiently as a mechanism that allots people into different occupational roles according to their “real”, “greatest” talents.”


Narrow Curriculum and Types of Schools

To begin, let’s first examine the focus of Hong Kong’s education system on both the curriculum and the types of schools. According to Cheng in The Education System, “The education system in Hong Kong is relatively monolithic.” Basically speaking, under Hong Kong’s education system there is largely one type of school, following one type of curriculum. Alternative styles of education and alternative curricula are often reviewed by parents as peripheral or an accessory.

This monolithic education system cannot help much to explore the potential talents of students because it only focuses on a certain pattern of curriculum that does not emphasize upon materials outside reading, writing and classroom learning. Talent and potential talent must be cultured by a system that encourages alternative styles and focus of learning, such as the arts, language, physical education, and the like. Obvious examples are the lacking of a sport ground in most Hong Kong schools, as well as parents’ placement of a lower priority on technical and vocational schools. According to Cheng in The Education System, while the Vocational Training Council adopted the latest concepts of technical education and vocational training with sophisticated facilities, which should have been highly commended by overseas experts, the entire sector only attracted five percent of the age group attending school.

Although the curriculum has been evolving, there generally remains the notion that education is purely training of the mind, while the content taught is unimportant. That is why Hong Kong’s education system is very limited in exploring one individual’s talents and thus shouldn’t be able to allocate people into different occupational roles accordingly.


Mode of Operation of Hong Kong’s Education System

As for the mode of operations in Hong Kong’s education system, the most influential practice hindering talent development is the classification of students according to their different abilities. Hong Kong’s education system tolerates the formal classification of students according to their intellectual ability. Students supposedly having different levels of intellectual ability are separated into different classes and different bands of schools. Undeniably, this practice helps to raise cost effectiveness and teaching efficiency. However, it also has its own drawbacks of restricting students from reaching their full potential once they are classified to a low-ability level class, or low-band school. They are, very likely, suffering from the bad consequences of self-fulfilling prophecy and labeling.

The self-fulfilling prophecy means that once the student has stereotyped himself or herself as a certain level person, he or she will execute this thought into practice. This is important to note because especially the norm within Hong Kong’s education systems considers peer pressure and competition as constructive and positive sources of motivation and are highly encouraged. This norm shifts the focus of education into a social activity, where all students are solely concerned with being the best in an area of competition appointed by the school system, rater than focusing on the development of individual talent.

After being labeled and segregated, students are less likely to develop their potential talents. For example, students placed into a low band school may not have access to as many educational resources, such as challenging homework, exams, and teaching materials, compared to those students placed into a high band school. In short, in the process of classifying and separating students into different levels, the assumptions made by the education system upon student abilities highly restrict an individual’s talent development.


Uneven Resources Allocation among Levels of Schools

Next, we will inspect Hong Kong’s education system in terms of its resources allocation among levels of schools. This issue can also helps explain why Hong Kong’s education system is not fully identify and develop one talents thus not able to function as a mechanism of to put people in different occupational roles according to talents.
According to some statistical data found in The Education System by Cheng, the Hong Kong government spends about only 3 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on education, which is already considered as comparatively low as the world average is 5.1 percent. The amount spent on primary and secondary school students is even less, which are 3 and 13 percent of the Hong Kong per capita GDP for a year respectively, comparing to 130 percent of Hong Kong per capita GDP for university students. Hong Kong‘s education system puts far more resources and emphases on higher education than on general education. At a result, it is not difficult to understand that our education cannot really help the majority of students, discovering and developing their “real” “full” talents.

One may still be able to find his or her interests towards particular occupation roles themselves in the course of their studies, especially within the tertiary education stage. However, the general case is that, students have to leave the system early, without being intentionally assigned to any occupational roles, and with a high uncertainty about their future career. That is why there are programmes such as the Youth Pre-employment Training Programme and Yi Jin helping those leaving the secondary school early.

Moreover, candidates who can be allocated to certain occupational roles by the system are probably only those who get exceptionally high academic achievement like who are able to study professional subjects like medicine, law in university. Therefore, in the process of allocating people into different occupational roles, our educational system is only able, to a very limited extent, assign those very top performers to those socially desired “brand named” careers, while its effect on role allocating for those average performers, are rather indirect and unintentional.


Social Class and Backgrounds

Now, let’s move on to our last approach to the issue in a more sociological, social-economic perspective. Apart from the internal problems within our education system, making its not a good allocating mechanism of occupational roles according to talents, the phenomenon of social stratification also has its impact. It is because the differences in social class and status may greatly influence individual levels of academic attainment within the same education system irrespective of their talents. Individuals of different social classes placed into the same school system may not end up receiving the same schooling experience and the same benefits.

According to the American economists and sociologists Bowles and Gintis (1976), class background is the most important factor influencing levels of attainment. They state, “The idea that we all compete on equal terms is an illusion” (Haralambos, 699). This statement indicates that regardless of education and the choice of jobs are open to all, some will have greater opportunities than others, especially the children of the wealthy. For instance, children of higher social status and wealthy backgrounds have the opportunity to continue to higher education, like studying abroad, even though they should not be able to get into local schools originally.

On the other hand, students with lower social class backgrounds have a propensity to attain lower standards in terms of education and career. It is not only a result of their lacking of opportunities for personal advancement, situating them into a position of disadvantage, but also, psychologically speaking, their placement of lower values and expectations on the education and on achieving higher occupational status. This can be further explained by the shop-floor culture, counter-school culture that the sociologist, Paul Willis, raised from the observations of lower-class students in an experiment, as well as, the views held by the American sociologist Herbert H.Hyman (1960s) (Haralambos, 702-704, 736-737).

From the former point of view by Paul Willis, lower class students actively create their own masculine and counter school subculture. This group of males voluntarily chooses to search for manual labor jobs, and they resent school as they think that education lacks relevance to their future work.

In regards to the latter point of views by Herbert H. Hyman, members of the working class believe there is less opportunity for personal advancement based on their placement of lower values on education and high occupational status. They would be, then, being trapped by “Fatalism” and also “Immediate gratification,” making them willing to put very little effort in school.

As a result, the so called “talent” measured in school; in terms of academic achievement do not accurately reflect the truth. Unsatisfactory academic achievement is then, actually the result of their originated social class, but not the cause for their being trapped in lower class. In the other words, it is not simply our education system which effects one’s academic attainment. Other mechanisms such as social stratification, actually has a greater impact on one’s academic success. Then, individuals being able to get highly desirable jobs or being trapped to particular undesired roles are more or less a result of class reproduction rather than a function of our education system.


Conclusion

There are many internal factors involved in an education system which make it not a good allocating mechanism of occupational roles according to differential talents of individuals. Our first observation of Hong Kong’s education system in terms of its curriculum and types of schools demonstrated that Hong Kong schools are not able to position persons into different occupational roles according to their individual talents because students’ talents are not able to be fully identified. In our second analysis, we determined that Hong Kong’s education system’s mode of operation was based on a hierarchical classification of students according to intellectual ability. This also resulted in a hindrance of individual development. Our third inspection revealed that because of Hong Kong’s uneven resource allocation among primary, secondary, and university students, the education system is only able to award the very top performers with “brand named” occupations. Lastly, our final inspection of Hong Kong’s education system involving a social-economic issue, enable to understand that differences in one’s social status can greatly influences levels of academic achievement. These achievements are thus not necessarily an accurate reflection of one’s talents. Supporting by the above arguments, we can conclude that, Hong Kong’s education system does not really allocate individuals into different occupational roles according to differential talents.






References

Haralambos, M., et al. 2004, pp. 1-6, 692-694, 698-706, 731-751. (R)

Cheng, K. M. 1997. “The Education System.” In Gerard A. Postiglione and Wing On Lee (eds) Schooling in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp.34-39 (R)