Basket.

I realised a little late that I have no posts in May. Well, what better to return with than more sterling citizens' letters from our august national broadsheet?

Does NUS Still Prefers Muggers?
ST Forum, June 3rd

WHEN are two Bs and a C not good enough for entry to the National University of Singapore (NUS) arts faculty? When, it appears, one of your Bs is in that 'new' subject, Knowledge and Inquiry (KI).

While people are keen to have a fourth university offering a liberal arts degree, NUS seems to eschew the liberal arts.

Of course, I may be wrong, and biased, since it was my son who received the NUS rejection letter. However, it rankles when he has a bunkmate who has secured a place in NUS with one B and two Cs (and the requisite pass in General Paper).

I watched my son enjoy KI. The subject offered him the chance to hone his critical faculties, debating and research skills.

As a philosophy major myself, I revelled in the discussions we had on moral philosophy, the scientific method, his research paper. I rejoiced in his rekindled interest in physics.

We looked forward to him pursuing his love of military history, politics and philosophy at NUS, confident his Bs in History and KI and C in English Literature were enough. It was not to be.

It appears NUS still prefers students who pass in the traditional 'mugging' subjects, and relegating KI to the status of General Paper.

This is ironic, as KI could be considered the most basic of university subjects - it was the only course of study in the past, and requires the skills any thinking, creative person must possess - ability to reason and express oneself clearly and critically, and passion to defend one's stand.


I must say that I have not seen a finer specimen of the "my son" letters so disturbingly common in this part of the world. Truly, this - this - is the way to write them. Gets right to the heart of the matter, makes the entitlement complex crystal-clear and is not embarrassed at all about making ludicrous statements and ridiculous demands.

That is very unfortunate, because the letter implicitly raises a good point - which is that our universities are not transparent about the process(es) whereby they select their students. It is a problem prevalent in Singapore, of course. Government agencies almost(?) never need to give you a reason for anything, and our bureaucracy is superb at politely stonewalling reasonable enquiries. Feedback is sent in and vanishes into an endless chasm, never to be heard from again, and nothing changes despite bland promises that such feedback is valuable and important. We know incredibly little about how most things work around here. If the writer had chosen to hammer home this point regarding our system of tertiary education, it would have been a perfectly sensible letter, although it probably wouldn't have helped much.

Instead, however, the letter does not explicitly make the point. Instead, it goes down the all-too-familiar path of a patent, poorly-explained inability to accept rejection, followed by fulsome praise for the offspring in question, presumably thought of as being justification as to why said offspring deserves and is entitled to a place in a university that receives well over twice as many applicants as it accepts (I daresay, has space for) every year.

It is this entitlement complex which is really irksome. The worst thing is that in many of these letters, with this one absolutely taking the cake, it is combined with a very haughty superiority complex. Look, no one deserves a place in university - maybe you'll get one if you know people in the right places, who knows really, but the vast majority of those in our local universities worked hard to get there. The effort they put in does not deserve to be cheapened by anybody insisting, implicitly or explicitly, that their own offspring simply deserves a place because, in a nutshell, "he is so smart". Your son or daughter is not entitled to a place in university just because you think he is smart or qualified. Get that straight.

As for that superiority complex, the last two paragraphs collectively make up a brilliant example:


It appears NUS still prefers students who pass in the traditional 'mugging' subjects, and relegating KI to the status of General Paper.

This is ironic, as KI could be considered the most basic of university subjects - it was the only course of study in the past, and requires the skills any thinking, creative person must possess - ability to reason and express oneself clearly and critically, and passion to defend one's stand.


KI is not special, despite what you might like to think. Of course it requires "the skills any thinking, creative person must possess" and the "ability to reason and express oneself clearly and critically", and the "passion to defend one's stand". Here's some news for you: it isn't the only A Level, or even AO Level subject to require that. GP does, too; no excellent GP essay can be produced by someone who lacks the "ability to reason and express oneself clearly and critically" and who lacks the passion and ability to defend his stand. In fact, most of the Arts subjects (can't speak for science, personally) at A-Level standard require thinking individuals who are able to reason critically and express themselves clearly. To denigrate all other subjects besides KI in this way is grossly unfair of the letter-writer.

I can understand how frustrating it is to not be able to get something you desire. Who can't? It's how you deal with that frustration that marks you out as the kind of person you are. We can then see that the author of this letter is no better than a petulant child.