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