r u sure they poor just want to "get an education"?
afaik, the poor can be quite choosy.
ive seen beggars on the roadside not satisfied with 10 cents.



and ive seen scholars who
get IPTA medic n cry foul coz they didnt get Ireland medic.
that's why i say, just give all the scholarships lousy uni .
and bond them kao kao.

then the genuinely poor will come forward n apply.
those ok 1 but wanna act poor will back off.

what i hate the most however are those people who dont realise theyre getting JPA juz because theyre poor , or acted poor by putting father's salary as RM 0 -1000.
and then they start prancing around n showing off their JPA scholarship, claiming them as prestigious. ROFLMAO.
a really prestigious scholarship will just be based on results and also maybe extra curricular activities.

ok...
i got jpa but i paid rm220 to matrikulasi.
can get back the money?
plz help

no way u gonna get back..
last year , 1 day before matriks intake, jpa was alredy released.
so if you know u prefer JPA, u can already skip the matriks.

isnt it the same this year?

I hope this is the last post I made out of this issue.

No you didn't categorize them as fat but you made an analogy out of it, just like I made a analogy of tax and scholarship. Please understand the difference between analogy and direct comparison.

This is the situation:
You believe scholarship as a form of reward. A reward should be given to everyone deserving it.
I believe scholarship as a form of aid. Which would explain why I think financial background should be included.
Neither is wrong.

In JPA's case, the mission of JPA's scholarship is to send Malaysian students to top universities so that they can bring much needed foreign expertise back to the country. If they had follow your selection criteria, they would be getting less return from their investment than if they had followed mine. In economics jargon, you have to consider the opportunity cost of your decisions.

Some simple economics. You give all 50 scholarship to the poor, you get 100 educated graduates. You give all to the rich, you get 50.

Reality is that how scholarships are given is tied to the mission of the sponsor. Is it reward or aid? If reward, then all good for me. And there are scholarships that are purely merit based, something that I do not oppose. If aid, then neither one of us can scream "unfair!". If both, then the sponsor must have some really deep pocket to fulfill both missions. Unfortunately most things in this world is finite, just like the saying goes "you can't have your cake and eat them at the same time.

As a counterpoint to your last statement, no I don't see it with money or politics, I see it with pragmatism. And frankly, I'm stumped as to where you get money & politics from since my idea has nothing to do with both.

On a lighter note though, congrats to those who got it!

This post has been edited by chrishung: May 20 2009, 06:22 PM

Where do we draw the line between the rich and the poor, and who draws it?
A portion of the citizens are rich enough to afford the local university education, but not abroad. Some have accummulated enough money to send their children for overseas education, but do you think they'll easily give up their 30 years of savings to send their children abroad? If they children were to work in Malaysia after graduation, it would take another 30 years to accummulate the same value of money. Do you think parents that saved their money for the raining days actually would give up their savings for education purposes?

Do you think the children whom their parents who worked hard and levitated their income to be slightly above the average less deserving a scholarship? So, children of irresponsible parents, or less hardworking are more deserving of the scholarships?

What is the aim of the scholarship? Is this a form of accolades or recognitions for academic excellence, or a bursary for students from lower income family? If it is the latter, then it should be called a grant, not a scholarship.

Do you think students who studied more than 10 subjects are actually poor (I'm not suggesting otherwise)? So how they afford to pay the exam fees, tuition fees and the transportation cost to tuition centre (if applicable), and books etc? What comes into your mind when students have got impressive non-academic achievements, like ABRSM Piano Grade 8 achievers? Would you be impressed, or would you think 'this is another rich brat applying for scholarship'?

I get the point in your message, but the poor wants to be rich, and the rich wants to be richer. Everyone wants a share of it. It is hard to draw a distinction between the poor and the rich. Think about the factors: number of children (Chinese family tends to have a number), cost of living and lifestyle (luxury or no, family holiday to Japan or no), savings (Chinese advocates saving for the raining day), fradulent claim of family income, ... etc. Hence, the best way to decide is by the 'survival of the fittest' method.

Of course, I am by no mean suggesting that achieving 9/10 A1s is a ticket to overseas education, which is what the current mindset is. Bear in mind that top scholars in the past have failed to achieve a place in Oxford and Cambridge. Students should not be encouraged to assume more As equates a guarantee to something, because even a 16A1s result is not an admission ticket to top universities, nevermind the graduate job market. Studying more subjects should be motivated by the fact the students have higher aptitude (and hence more time) or for the thirst of knowledge. But in Malaysia, it has been viewed as a way to increase one's competitive edge, and stand up amongst the crowd. So are we talking about the survival of the fittest now? Students took more than 12 subjects because they knew of one thing, to be the survival of the fittest and to secure the scholarships. Whilst I do not think it's a bad idea, it does put a lot of pressure on the younger generation. More and more subjects have to be taken and more exam oriented (since we're talking about paper qualifications). But what about people who achieved less As, or perhaps none. Will they be a social outcast? Ostracised and neglected by these 'elitists'? While the city is getting all the attention, those from the rural area (or less developed town/city) are getting none. They can't afford the education, no good teachers lead to less As, ... etc. The wealth distribution will diverge. So what now? They are even people who connivingly switched schools because they knew it would increase the chances of getting As and scholarship.

There's really not a win-win situation, is there?

p/s: I hope you realise I am not condemning you. Most of these questions are purely rhetorical, and do have a simple answer. I just want people to realise the issue is not as simple as it seems.

This post has been edited by TSOM: May 20 2009, 07:04 PM

referring to "Do you think students who studied more than 10 subjects are actually poor?", i am totally agree with TSOM's opinion.

Well, what i think is you must surely have the luck on your side to get the scholarship......., besides looking at academic and co-curriculum achievements.

it is refundable from what i've heard from my friend.go n try call matriks bhgn pendaftaran

1. We do not need to draw the rich/poor line. I'll explain on that part in a moment.

2. Everyone who deserves scholarship should get it regardless of background. I was hoping that someone would realise my stand by now. What I'm saying is that nobody should complain either if the sponsor includes a financial background criteria to whittle down the number.

3. Even if it's a form of grant, you'll want the receipient to be able to do well and so inevitably the merit factor comes in. This point becomes mere semantics.

4. I wouldn't know. And frankly you can't tell since we're talking about college education whose cost is a lot higher than secondary education. And I would be impressed by that fellow with non-academic achievement. Who says anything about calling the kid a rich brat?

Fraudulent income claim wouldn't be a problem as long as it's not a fraudulent academic claim because in the end, the deserving student still gets it rich or poor. You need to understand that this is not an argument about giving scholarship to less achieving students. Rather this is a discussion on whether to include financial background selection criteria, which in turn tend to have an effect of giving scholarship to less achieving students. This effect is minimized by having a weighing system that heavily favors academic achievements. The minuscule percentage for financial consideration would mean that you need to be really rich to be at a significant disadvantage against your peers. And when you are super rich it wouldn't really matter how many kids you got anymore, or lifestyles or cost of living. And this would answer question number 1. No rich/poor line needed. The financial criteria would not be a make or break issue although I am unsure if such a requirement even exist for any scholarships. You'd still stand a decent chance even with your parents high income.

This balancing act would be the win-win situation.

PS: Wondering why nobody is complaining about JPA's civil servant consideration?

This post has been edited by chrishung: May 21 2009, 02:25 AM

News, anyone??

still no letter

nope, not yet for me

when is the appeal results coming out? Anyone mind enlightening me?

no letter yet la.....but i hear some people phone go to jpa and ask...they say by 29 of may will sent le...n maybe arrive at early of june lo..wat u get for....i get jpa scholarship for accounting at ipts.....do u noe wat ipts for account ma?

helo guy? do an1 of you ge kejuruteraan perancis ? can describe that a bit 4 me?I still don't hav any idea of wad tat bout?

today is only 24 of May, use courier? arrive at june??

u choose sumtin tat that u dun even noe? myb its engineering in france? bt wad type of engineering? best way, is phone them

It's been a week already.........
Wait like this really very sianz.

+1

why? ive been wondering that too.
i know someone whose parents are both teachers, and all 3 of their children got scholarships,not in those lelong course
but i dont know whether that's because of their parents' job.
is it explicitly stated that civil servants will be preferred or are we juz guessing?

and my friends, whose moms and dads are both teachers, got the scholarship as well.
the chance decreases to normal if only 1 parent is a civil servant, while the other's in private.
are we seeing a pattern, or maybe the teacher's children are more brilliant?

personally i think civil servants are getting a very good bargain, except those in healthcare sector (i.e doctors , nurses)

One of my friends whose parents are in teachers got the German Engineering scholarship, with 2-3 Bs for her result.

Well, being civil servants have advantage, for sure. After all, a child of civil servants are more likely to serve the government instead of people in the private sector.

anyone from sc course got the offer letter yet???