UoL vs Local Universities: Fact or Fiction?
As a student in UoL, it may seem inappropriate for me to comment at all since I am likely to be prejudiced towards defending the UoL Programme.
Nevertheless this is a valid but insufficient proposition. If I, being a "customer" or "product" of the system are not allow to share my "reviews", then who else is more qualified? Someone who had not even sampled/used the "product" before? I digress.
The purpose is to share a little more about the distinct strengths and weaknesses between UoL and local universities in Singapore. This is NOT meant to generate a debate about the specific curriculum and other things that are not directly comparable. Rather it is supposed to examine the pedagogy and efficacy of the systems from a generalized point of view.
By this point, you may have thought to yourself: "What is there to compare?" Isn't it obvious which one is better?" Hold your horses!
Have you actually asked yourself "Which is better- Statens pensjonsford Utland or GIC?" For those who are muddled by what I just mentioned, Statens pensjonsford-Utland (SPU) is the Norwegian Government Pension Fund-Global, and GIC stands for Government of Singapore Investment Corporation. They are Sovereign Wealth Funds from Norway and and Singapore respectively.
By this point, you may be thinking I'm trying to confuse you with a red herring. So now I'll take some time to explain myself. If we looks at SPU anf GIC, they are both Soverign Wealth Funds. Based on impression alone, some people may immediately draw a conclusion to my earlier question. Even when quoting figures, there are many factors to consider: history (SPU 1990 vs GIC 1981), total assets under management (SPU $715.9 bil vs GIC $247,5 bil), rate of return on specific asset classes, investment criteria, degree of regional exposure, etc. The figures are outdated, but you get the point- even figures are not sufficient to conclude our assessment. Rather we make conclusions based on the weight attached to each criteria.
Similarly in trying to assess the UoL system versus local universities is probably a grave mistake if we try to simply quote figures and bulldoze our way through to conclude "XXX is better than YYY". Very often, people fail to see the value of our institutions (be it UoL, NUS, NTU, SMU, SUTD, UniSIM, RMIT, UB, SIT, etc) because we are simply attacking the alternatives. Weak alternatives does not imply that the current choice is valuable itself.
If there is one thing I learn from my UoL life, it is independence, discipline and the intense curiosity required to do well in the Programme. As much of the learning is self-directed, there is not much guidance provided. Critics of UoL often cite the lack of coursework as an impediment to "quality" learning. This criticism is valid- the lack of coursework may have indeed led to poor comprehension and the inability to monitor one's learning as the module proceeds across the semester.
However this is in fact a hallmark of being a UoL student- without the necessary coursework or close supervision of tutors and professors, we had to be active to clarify and seek understanding ourselves. The lack of coursework somehow forces us to be diligent and resourceful in seeking out various sources of knowledge- videos, books, pdfs, websites of other universities, etc.
I cannot say for other UoL students, but I had learnt to take charge of my learning, to pace myself and to hold myself accountable for my pursuits, be it in physical fitness, intellectual expansion, skills & competencies, relationships and other areas.
This "training" also cemented the right attitude for working in the fast paced knowledge economy- I do not expect my boss to babysit me. I am hungry to learn, yet I go the extra mile to evaluate and correct my mistakes along the way. I am active to obtain feedback, be it from my colleagues or the environment/system I was immersed in. And I am sure I'm not the only UoL student who can testify to it. By neglecting such qualities, employers actually lose out by dismissing valuable talent.
This is not to say that "UoL changed my life" or "UoL is the top notch institution in the world". Rather, the constraints we are subjected to mold us to become better individuals. It also removes the sense of complacency since we learn not to take opportunities for granted, having lost it once during our Polytechnic or JC days. I am not ashamed to say that I enrolled in UoL with poor results- I alone am responsible for my dismal performance. But I can definitely say I learnt alot from studying in this Programme.
In my opinion, the local universities are better in a few ways:
1. They have better funding for their students.
2. They have better standing internationally.
Caveat: University rankings are problematic, though the few in the top spots are so outstanding that they shine in almost every criteria imposed. For more info, read:
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/dept/news/stanfordtoday/ed/9705/9705fea1.html
http://euobserver.com/education/29189
And other resources
3. They provide value-added services to students using their brand and networks.
4. They provide a more structural approach to learning, with coursework, seminars, presentations and project work.
5. The quality of students tend to be more consistent and predictable since the barriers to entry are significantly higher than UoL.
There is nothing wrong to admit that they are better in terms of the above areas. But I submit that the strengths of local universities does not imply that UoL students are bumbling, incompetent and unmotivated idiots who are "having it easy".
Critics of UoL's academic may be invited to attempt a few modules, namely Introduction to Economics, Principles of Marketing, Monetary Economics and Elements of Econometrics. Download some of these papers online and attempt it yourself:
http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/community-support-resources/current-students/emfss-programme-resources/past-exam-papers/exam-emfss-papers
Ask yourself if it is really as easy as you thought. Then consider the bias you had applied to UoL students regarding their academics.
Addendum (6 May 2013)
After a few days of soul searching, I realized that I had deviated from the focus of the blog post: to address the issue of "UoL vs Local Universities" because there are many misconceptions about the programme which affects not just me, but also my peers and juniors. It started out as a response towards hearsay, stereotypes and half-truths perpetuated in online forums.
However I realized that along the way, I had been critical of hiring practices towards UoL and Private Degree students. Although I tried to respond to various comments, I did not provide a clear solution to the issue "If we don't use the Foreign Uni > Local Uni > Private Degree proxy, how can we expect employers to hire the best talent?"
I have to make clear my apology- my apology is not towards those who hold a deterministic view that "Foreign Uni > Local Uni > Private Degree", since my blog post was suppose to disrupt this mentality.
Here, my apologies are for the hiring managers who have no effective way to identify the right fit except through segregating by schools. Aaron Tai should receive credit for challenging my thinking regarding this issue too.
It is a tough job for you as HR personnel to conduct and fulfill recruitment needs for the company. At the outset, it is difficult to source for the right candidates. Since the HR department has a budget to adhere to, you are also unable to outsource every vacancy to Recruitment Solution Providers. At the same time, you face the daily pressure from other departments who are urgently seeking to fill certain vacancies. Besides recruitment, you also have to handle payroll, staff benefits, training courses, internal transfers, follow up on legal issues from past employees, research and draw up manpower needs for different divisions, liaise with external service providers and many other duties.
Placing myself in your shoes, I realize that I also will not be able to come up with a proper solution to the recruitment problem- yet I expected you to do it differently. I had acted like a foolish child- criticizing the system but offering no solutions. I am sorry.
This "training" also cemented the right attitude for working in the fast paced knowledge economy- I do not expect my boss to babysit me. I am hungry to learn, yet I go the extra mile to evaluate and correct my mistakes along the way. I am active to obtain feedback, be it from my colleagues or the environment/system I was immersed in. And I am sure I'm not the only UoL student who can testify to it. By neglecting such qualities, employers actually lose out by dismissing valuable talent.
This is not to say that "UoL changed my life" or "UoL is the top notch institution in the world". Rather, the constraints we are subjected to mold us to become better individuals. It also removes the sense of complacency since we learn not to take opportunities for granted, having lost it once during our Polytechnic or JC days. I am not ashamed to say that I enrolled in UoL with poor results- I alone am responsible for my dismal performance. But I can definitely say I learnt alot from studying in this Programme.
In my opinion, the local universities are better in a few ways:
1. They have better funding for their students.
2. They have better standing internationally.
Caveat: University rankings are problematic, though the few in the top spots are so outstanding that they shine in almost every criteria imposed. For more info, read:
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/dept/news/stanfordtoday/ed/9705/9705fea1.html
http://euobserver.com/education/29189
And other resources
3. They provide value-added services to students using their brand and networks.
4. They provide a more structural approach to learning, with coursework, seminars, presentations and project work.
5. The quality of students tend to be more consistent and predictable since the barriers to entry are significantly higher than UoL.
There is nothing wrong to admit that they are better in terms of the above areas. But I submit that the strengths of local universities does not imply that UoL students are bumbling, incompetent and unmotivated idiots who are "having it easy".
Critics of UoL's academic may be invited to attempt a few modules, namely Introduction to Economics, Principles of Marketing, Monetary Economics and Elements of Econometrics. Download some of these papers online and attempt it yourself:
http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/community-support-resources/current-students/emfss-programme-resources/past-exam-papers/exam-emfss-papers
Ask yourself if it is really as easy as you thought. Then consider the bias you had applied to UoL students regarding their academics.
Addendum (6 May 2013)
After a few days of soul searching, I realized that I had deviated from the focus of the blog post: to address the issue of "UoL vs Local Universities" because there are many misconceptions about the programme which affects not just me, but also my peers and juniors. It started out as a response towards hearsay, stereotypes and half-truths perpetuated in online forums.
However I realized that along the way, I had been critical of hiring practices towards UoL and Private Degree students. Although I tried to respond to various comments, I did not provide a clear solution to the issue "If we don't use the Foreign Uni > Local Uni > Private Degree proxy, how can we expect employers to hire the best talent?"
I have to make clear my apology- my apology is not towards those who hold a deterministic view that "Foreign Uni > Local Uni > Private Degree", since my blog post was suppose to disrupt this mentality.
Here, my apologies are for the hiring managers who have no effective way to identify the right fit except through segregating by schools. Aaron Tai should receive credit for challenging my thinking regarding this issue too.
It is a tough job for you as HR personnel to conduct and fulfill recruitment needs for the company. At the outset, it is difficult to source for the right candidates. Since the HR department has a budget to adhere to, you are also unable to outsource every vacancy to Recruitment Solution Providers. At the same time, you face the daily pressure from other departments who are urgently seeking to fill certain vacancies. Besides recruitment, you also have to handle payroll, staff benefits, training courses, internal transfers, follow up on legal issues from past employees, research and draw up manpower needs for different divisions, liaise with external service providers and many other duties.
Placing myself in your shoes, I realize that I also will not be able to come up with a proper solution to the recruitment problem- yet I expected you to do it differently. I had acted like a foolish child- criticizing the system but offering no solutions. I am sorry.
I believe you've left some holes in your argument though. Sure, the modules you have listed may be challenging. However, the grading system is very different as compared to the local ivies. For example, if you take an NUS student with a second lower, and place him into SIM-UOL, high chance he would easily attain a first class. Because of the bell-curve, that NUS student has to compete with hordes of other triple A students in NUS, hence his grades would be pulled down. Place him in SIM and he becomes a genius because he is now competing against triple D students instead. Hence, even if you do ace difficult mods in SIM, put those scores into the NUS system and you might actually end up with a C instead.
ReplyDeleteThat aside, I've seen very bright and brilliant SIM students as well. However, the main problem, as you've stated as well, is the lack of coursework. The number of modules an SIM student takes per sem pales in comparison to that of a student in the local uni. Not to mention that the student in the local uni is sometimes forced to study modules out of his field of interest instead of concentrating of his degree-related modules. This puts the local student at a disadvantage(in terms of exam scores) as he has to invest more time in an unrelated module as he may not be used to the subject and he also has to divide his time over a larger number modules than an SIM student.
My stand however, is that SIM students are lacking because of the fact that they take less modules in different areas. You see, a lot of people these days have got it all wrong. A 'university' is supposed to provide a universal education. Hence the name. A degree was never meant to be a means to a job. The job was just a by-product of a wholesome education. The reason why local students seems that bit smarter is because of that education.
You may refute me, for I have no evidence to support my theories. But I truly believe that electives that are placed outside of the main field of study is important as it diversifies the mind and a person's knowledge base. You may think that 'oh, learning astronomy is useless because im gonna be an accountant anyways' but this mentality has to change. Are there any such links between astronomy and accountancy? None. However, it is the skills that one picks up from learning astronomy that is important.
A simple man's argument has always been 'why must learn cosine, sine all these bullshit, Im not gonna use it anyway'. But what these simplistic people fail to see is that the subject, in this case triangular theorems, has always been just the MEDIUM of which the real part of education is taught, which in the case of triangles, basic problem solving. Thus, it is my opinion that SIM students lose out not only in content, but more importantly, thinking skills.
To be honest, I feel that you are one exception. Sure, SIM churns out probably 0.1% grads like you each year. But the stereotype that has been placed on SIM grads is mostly due to the other 99.9% who are not as capable as you. That is the fact. And this will not change, not in a hundred years. SIM Global remains a money-making machine. Their shareholders will take in as many students as they possibly can in order to increase their revenue. Students that may not have the aptitude nor the attitude to perform in the course. But these students graduate in the end, join the workforce with their incompetence, and drag down the name of SIM with them. Im from SIM too btw.
I'm sorry. You're misinformed. UOLIP exams are held at same academic standard as internal programmes in UK. Most SIM-UOL students are from LSE-Led programmes. For goodness sake, LSE is ranked no. 2 in the world by QS for social sciences & management far higher than NUS. Easy entry doesn't mean lower standard. You probably have learned economics that with excess demand, price goes up. Supply of NUS places is far lower and demand higher hence harder to get in NUS but get someone that gets into NUS and try applying straight into LSE undergraduate. Probably even harder to enter LSE than NUS. If you check where all the PSC scholars mostly go to, mostly are to Ivy leagues or OxBridge, Imperial, LSE or UCL with only a few going to local universities.
DeleteLSE grading is the same be it internal or external and does not have bell curve. Not everyone gets A in LSE, only minorities. Sure NUS students are bright but LSE students are far brighter. SIM-UOL students are not from LSE and cannot label self as one but never took exams of equal standard. This is validated by UoL statutes. I went to LSE to do my MSc hence I know this as a fact.
Just because you're in SIM, doesn't mean you are inferior. The moment you believe you are inferior, you have already lost half of the battles. SIM-UOL does have drop-outs and even when graduates do graduate, those that do not perform graduate with low honours. To get second upper honours and above is less than 25%.
The UoL vs Local U debate will never end, because their systems are not even comparable in the first place.
DeleteUnder the UoL system, grading is absolute under the judgement of at least 3 tutors per module.
Under the Local U system, grading is relative to the performance of the cohort.
When people assert the superiority of one over the other, they are merely arguing over the relative merits of each system without convincing proof. This leads to a futile exercise of tautology.
Dear Havok,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply! I actually agree with you on a few points:
1. As a UoL student, I take less modules than students from local universities
2. The Bell Curve changes the game for local university students, as compared to the system in UoL based on absolute scores.
3. A university should provide a comprehensive education. Broad based education is an ideal advocated by certain educators, particularly those in the Liberal Arts.
4. One of the desired outcomes of taking a wide range of disciplines will be the ability to think creatively across disciplines. For example, the root systems in biology can be used to examine modality, which can be applied to the design of resilient financial systems.
However I will not be so quick to judge the outcome of the system based on the number of modules alone.
Here's a confession: I was a DDE student, and I don't consider myself 0.1. Infact it's used as a joke among friends nowadays -_- They will catch me in my "blur" moments and say something like "Wa lau, 0.1 also so blur.", "0.1 thinking usually quite weird one.", so on and so forth. I actually found it quite amusing :) Considering my roots, I'm just a simple neighborhood kid with a strong sense of curiosity and the privilege to have access to education.
There are also certain arguments that can be put forth. Before I proceed, here are some disclaimers:
1. This is not done in an attempt to twist or defame local universities. There is no value. in shooting others to elevate oneself.
2. I do not have the statistical data to back up my claims, only anecdotes. Therefore I may be "wrong" in the sense that what I share do not accurately describe the experiences of certain students. Therefore I can only argue hypothetically on principle.
Here goes:
ReplyDelete1. General vs Specific Knowledge
Local universities provide a wide range of modules , but UoL does not. There are already many arguments put forth to argue that a certain degree of General Education is essential for a student.
I heard that MIT employs this system: freshman MIT students are graded differently from their seniors with the intention of allowing them to adapt to the learning curve. http://web.mit.edu/firstyear/2016/subjects/grading.html
As you can tell, I favor Generalist Education not just because we get to learn many things, but also its implications for our intellectual development. In fact, I wrote this in 2009: "Disciplines" and "Schools" are merely different ways of perceiving a "problem". This does not automatically make all knowledge relativistic or all "problems" reducible to a "Theory of Everything". Rather, it frees our creativity for case-by-case collaboration between rival Schools or Disciplines alienated from one other.
By this point, some may jump to the conclusion: oh, so you actually favor local universities over UoL? Not necessarily. We need to realize that association does not imply correlation. While there are arguments put forth for a General Education, it also depends on the students themselves.
I've heard local university students makes comments like "It's a waste of time studying something totally not relevant to me." If you stand for a Generalist Education (like me), you may be alarmed by such comments. However I want you to suspend your judgement for a moment.
There are many reasons why students study for a degree. Some people actually do not care much about learning- the degree is merely a stepping stone to the working world.
In addition there are individuals who are gifted differently. A Generalist Education can be likened to a "line of best fit" thinking- it makes allowance for a broad base of learning, but it tend to disadvantage outliers who are narrowly endowed for specific areas.
As such, there are individuals who argue for specialization rather than General Education.
2. Other Factors Affecting Grades
What I am going to express may lead to flaming and widespread anger- I am threading in dangerous waters but here it goes:
UoL students generally do not have regular tutorial-based close contact with examiners, but it may not be the case for local universities. I am not trying to open a can of worms (please don't go in the sex-for-grades direction) but contact with potential examiners may actually improve the chance of scoring well.
It is crucial that I put a disclaimer at this point: I do not question the academic integrity of the staff in local universities. Nor am I trying to set up an ad hominem.
Actually the explaination is pretty commonsense: university education is not just an impartation of intellect, but also a social event. I thank God for good lecturers whom I respect, and have the privilege to learn from. While it may be a stretch to call a lecturer my "friend", I will say that the regular contact along the weeks allows me to discover certain traits: his/her pet topics, the things that he/she emphasized are important.
Sometimes it is based on a gut feeling. It is politically correct to say that everything in the syllabus is important, but actually some are more important than others for the quiz/exam. Basically social contact allows one to use non-verbal cues and deduction to pick up possible questions. And UoL students in general do not have this luxury.
This may not be true, therefore do not treat it as if I am making an assertion. I am merely making an allegation, but there is no proof for it. Just a probable possibility.
3) The modules of UoL are not necessarily inferior to local universities. Again, this is meant to challenge stereotypes.
ReplyDeleteHowever the comparison of modules between local universities and UoL is problematic for various reasons:
- Differences exist even between local universities themselves.
- UoL modules are taken Wholesale. It does not provide progressive levels like in local universities.
I do not take Microeconomic Analysis I, II and III. I simply take a year-long Microeconomics module. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Not really.
A year long module is not bite-sized, and it also makes it difficult to spot questions. For some modules, it is impossible to do so (I speak from experience. I try to spot questions but I also study for everything). To do well, I have to pray hard that
(i) the examiner sets an easy paper,
(ii) I am already good enough to exceed the distinction benchmark by the exam itself and
(iii) the best case scenario is when (i) and (ii) simultaneously occurs.
- Which brings me to the point about bell curve. The most controversial argument put forth usually goes like this:
"Local university have bell curve, UoL don't have. Therefore, UoL honors should be deemed as one class lower than local university."
In that case, it will be interesting to consider NUS and LSE (don't worry, UoL will be considered later).
I am not saying that I am from LSE. I also admit that UoL modules are likely to be easier than LSE, although I am not sure why LSE still accepts UoL students for their Masters Programme.
LSE is one of the most selective schools in the world. Their students are brilliant. However they do not have a bell curve. In addition, their criteria for honors grading is the same as the UoL programme (not surprising since LSE is the lead college for EMFSS).
Yet few will argue that local university students are better than LSE students on the basis of a bell curve.
However I want to challenge such thinking: I submit that a NUS 1st class may be potentially as good, and possibly even better than a LSE First Class in Economics.
"What the hell is he saying?????"
Well, what I'm saying is that this entire issue is a matter of perception. The fact is that competition in LSE exists (come on, it is the LSE!) but not in terms of grading. They don't need the bell curve to spur their hides- the dazzling performances of their schoolmates are sufficient to motivate them to strive for the highest standards.
This does not mean that local universities are skewed. The bell curve system is actually a more "fair" approach towards assessing a cohort. In the case of UoL and LSE under absolute grading, it is possible for a large portion of the cohort to fail, and the examiners may simply say "Too bad, they missed the mark. Try again then."
"I also admit that UoL modules are likely to be easier than LSE, although I am not sure why LSE still accepts UoL students for their Masters Programme."
DeleteNot true. Academic standard is the same. I'm a SIM-UOL graduate (2nd upper honours) and went ahead to LSE to do MSc Management & Human Resources graduated with merit. The fact I got a merit (and there are SIM-UOL graduates that got distinction, some went Cambridge and Oxford as well) show that UOLIP is not sub-standard. When you graduate from UOL, it already show that you have achieved certain standard. Don't be fooled by local ignorant elitist. Just because you are UOL graduate doesn't make you inferior. It is easy to enter UOLIP but that doesn't mean the standard is lower. You have learned economics right? When there is excess demand that demand is either high or supply is low or both occur, price goes up. Same reason why NUS is harder to enter for an example. Nothing to do with standard. All these impression of 'sub-standard' is just discrimination and bias. It is something we UOL graduates need to deal with and break the barrier, not to accept it as a fact rather than bias.
The key therefore lies in assessing an individual by his/her own merit rather than referring to the system he/she is part of (though no doubt that the individual's system plays a part to showcase the merit).
ReplyDeleteIt is quite ridiculous sometimes. If I were to compare myself to a local university student side by side, most people would have discounted my value even before giving me a chance to demonstrate my understanding and ability.
But if I were to complete a Masters at LSE or Warwick (which might be possible for me, but I chose not to do so), the perception changes instantly although I'm still the same person with the same passion for economics. We need more enlightened thinking in such matters.
It is also ridiculous to simply discount a local university student when he/she is compared against an Ivy Leaguer or top universities in UK, but I suppose this is how society operates.
In this scenario where Foreign U > Local U > UoL + Other Private Degrees, it only leads to a mismatch of talent and breeds disillusionment in the education system. I wonder how many companies have forgo valuable talents because the hiring manager embraces such a mindset.
We need a change of mindset in the way we perceive talent, both at a company level of competing against other firms (my bad, economics jargon) and at a macroeconomic level where Singapore is aiming to be a world-class knowledge economy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat's stopping u from pursuing ur Msc at LSE or Warwick?
ReplyDeleteFInancial Constraint?
"It is also ridiculous to simply discount a local university student when he/she is compared against an Ivy Leaguer or top universities in UK"
Why is that ridiculous? One has straight As at his/her A level while the other didn't.
To add on, since u mentioned "We need a change of mindset in the way we perceive talent."
DeleteMay I then ask what do u think should be a more appropriate way of assessing a person?
Dear Aaron,
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the time to respond. The main issue stopping me from pursuing Msc at LSE or Warwick is financial. In fact I had to stop school for one year to work for my education fees. However my finances has stabilized since then. The fees at LSE and Warwick however is too high, and I am unlikely to qualify for any form of scholarship.
This brings me to my second point: I don't want to give the impression that I will confirm get in (though the chances are above average). Although the Msc is rumored to be *less* selective than Bsc, the chances of acceptance is also rather slim.
Contrary to popular opinion, the entry criteria for many top foreign universities is not just based on results. I have a few friends from HCJC, RJC and others who did not chose foreign universities for a few reasons:
1) Family issues, including the need to care for parents or the likelihood of homesickness (to each their own)
2) Financial issues: It is no secret that foreign education is much more expensive than local universities. In addition, the miscellaneous fees for transport, food and accommodation are also rather high. Unless one is under a scholarship or bond, their family and relatives may not be able to afford it.
3) Other considerations not mentioned above. Some people actually chose not to take up scholarships or bonds because they don't want to be tied down- I know some people may suggest bond-breaking at a later date, but it is an ethically questionable.
Life is filled with many choices subjected to constraints. There are many who did not choose foreign universities even though academic-wise they could have made it there. Therefore *some* (not all) local university students may actually be as good, or if not better, than their foreign peers.
I will like to add that the main issue with our mindset lies in the way we perceive potential. If we have a deterministic mindset that simply judges an individual based on their ala mater and past results, we had effectively silenced and discounted their current value.
A person's potential is not static. It can expand (and sometimes regress) though time, effort, opportunities and life experiences.
There is no single appropriate way to assess a person, but the most practical thing to do is to avoid pigeonholes in the selection of candidates for interviews into Foreign U > Local U > Private U. This could be done by random sample or cluster sampling of candidates.
The key rationale is that the organization is not hiring a brand, but an actual living person to accomplish tasks that contributes to , or directly impacts, its objectives and success.
It is not to say that we totally disregard the probability that a foreign university graduate is better than a local university graduate. But organizations should adjust the ratio of interviewees (as appropriate to them) such as 40% Foreign, 40% Local, 20% Private to tap on a diverse talent pool.
Ermm...have you considered the local uni Msc programmes?
ReplyDeleteIf you could enter Warwick/LSE, I see no reason why cannot apply to NUS/NTU Msc in Economics. You are studying economics right?
Local unis are much more cheaper. Surely.
Okay, surely there are people whom are able to enter the ivies or oxbridge. But due to other constraints they have to settle for the local unis.
But you still can't deny that majority of the ivies/oxbridge students have better grades than the local uni students. Right?
By and large, all I'm talking about is securing the first job.
Obviously after the first, 2nd or 3rd job and so on and so forth, we should judge the person more on his working capabilities than his/her academic credentials.
But for the first job, obviously employers will judge and assess a person's value base on his academic credentials. So the Ivies/Oxbridge will always be prefered over NUS/NTU/SMU while SIM-UOL will be down the pecking order. Logically isn't it?
This is pertaining to the first job only.
You have already mentioned that there are many constraints. Employers too have many constraints and there are so many pool of candidates to choose from, obviously employers have no time to allow everyone single one of the job applicants to come for the interview and assess who is suitable and who is not.
So, employers pick a few and get those with better academic credentials down for the interview and subsequently assess these people and see who is best suited to perform the job.
Employers too have constraints. Right?
Dear Aaron,
ReplyDeleteIt is true that employers have constraints, and I do not hold any expectations (nor illusions) that a company should accommodate me or my peers in any manner.
There are still KPIs to meet, daily tasks that needs to be completed and the company staff needs to get about its core operations rather than to cater to some fresh graduate crying out for fairness.
The company holds every right whether or not to hire certain employees. They also have their own clear criteria to adhere to.
Frankly, it is of no concern to hiring managers to know about it in the first place. Often, the easy way out is to use the proxy that "Foreign U > Local U > UoL + Other Private Degrees".
However, I felt the need to address the issue of "UoL vs Local Universities" because there are many misconceptions about the programme since it affects not just me, but also my peers and juniors too.
The aim of the blog was mainly a response to hearsay, stereotypes and half-truths perpetuated in online forums. It is not to dictate or debate what companies ought to do.
If this blog post helps a fellow student to understand the system better, a parent whose child might be considering UoL or provide an alternative perspective for managers who are considering UoL hires, it will have accomplished its purpose.
...Frankly, it is of no concern to hiring managers to know about it in the first place...
ReplyDeleteThe "it" refers to the features of the UoL programme.
Regarding the Masters programme:
ReplyDeleteI know a UoL person accepted into a 2 year NUS Masters. However it is possible to finish the Masters in Economics at UK universities in one year. The shorter timeframe implies that there is a tradeoff between finishing early in UK and finishing later in Singapore.
In addition, there's a struggle to try to make sense of the relevance of the Masters itself. Will it really help me to be better equipped in my field, or allow me to transit to other fields? Which fields am I specifically referring to? Are there alternatives through which the transition can also be accomplished? Is it worth the initial investment, especially when I have less than 2 years of working experience?
Then there's the unavoidable issue of branding once again (LSE vs Warwick vs NUS, etc).
Alot of issues to consider.
I'm not trying to debate or dictate anything as well.
ReplyDeleteU mentioned that the preference of Ivies/Oxbridge followed by NUS/NTU/SMU and subsequently SIM-UOL and etc.... is fundamentally wrong and quite obviously, I beg to differ. Nth more than that.
The rest of the points which u brought up regarding SIM-UOL I think it is perfectly legitimate and if any prospective students read it, I'm sure they can then make a much more informed decision on whether he/she should enter this programme.
Lastly, NUS or NTU Msc in Economics takes only 1 year. (Full-time) For the part-time programme then it will take 2 years.So I guess ur friend did part-time?
Btw u grad w 2:1 or better from SIM-UOL I suppose? Are u working now? If yes, mind sharing what are u working as?
If u are not working and have just grad. U might want to consider doing a Msc at NUS/NTU.
ReplyDeleteThe NUS/NTU brand will help u in your job search taking into account that u only have SIM-UOL in ur CV.
It is totally not going to shine in the eyes of the employers.
Well if your job search is going well then u can ignore this post. /heh.
*NUS/NTU Msc cost ab 20-30k and takes only a year. (Full-time)
Dear Aaron,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the info about Msc Economics in NTU and NUS. For NTU, I found that it can be completed in a year. For the NUS, I am not sure.
I also found out that SMU has a strong econometrics department,and a Msc Financial Economics which can be completed in 10 months, so it may also be taken into consideration.
I secured my 2:1 by my second academic year, so this year I should be graduating with 1st.
Financial-wise, it remains a problem. If I had S$40k to spare, I will definitely enroll in a Msc Economics Programme.
Hi! can I ask what is your approach in attaining a first class honour? And whether textbooks are essential for exams purposes to achieve 1st class? furthermore, does good/ bad lecturer really matters? because I truly feel that at the end of the day it is still up to oneself.
ReplyDeleteHi, tingrui,
ReplyDeleteI'm not a guru but actually I did certain things which improved my efficiency:
1) Go through the essential readings.
There is no need to buy textbooks. Just borrow and return weekly.
2) Practice Zone A + Zone B from 2013 to 2002 (if possible). There are many people who claimed that syllabus had changed, etc. But if you want to get FCH, you must be determined to go beyond the basic syllabus.
Do not ever confine yourself to merely learning within the subject guide (unless during the exam period where time is of essence).
3) Start early. I mean like start from September. Read a chapter of essential readings after every lecture. My lecturers are enablers who set the framework for my learning, They are important. But there are consistent follow ups in learning that I must be responsible to complete myself.
Hi Angsy,
ReplyDeleteI greatly appreciate the many insights you have provided about your SIM-UOL education! I believe with your drive and predicted 1st class honors you will not have much difficulty in finding employment locally.
I have some queries regarding SIM-UOL as I am actually considering taking up a part-time BSc in Banking and Finance (2 years graduate entry route) after I secure a job. It is my intention to eventually enrol in LSE's MSc in Finance or a MBA in an established business school in the states but my NUS grades are unfortunately subpar. I am hoping that an improved academic performance in another degree along with a good GMAT score would up my chances. However, $20k++ for a SIM-UOL degree is no small sum and I would like to consider my options carefully.
I would like to ask, in your honest opinion, is the SIM-UOL curriculum and examinations very demanding for a part-time student who probably has to clock a 11-13 hour work day? This is assuming that there are no major responsibilities like kids to handle and I ideally have around 5 hours of sleep per day. I would obviously have to compromise on some hobbies and social time.
I would also like to know if tutors there are available and approachable for consultation if I am weak in certain modules and need more guidance. Any additional tips or online resources to do well are also greatly appreciated!
Thanks so much!
Hi GQ Man,
DeleteI happened to pass by this blog and saw your questions which I can answer.
On average, you need 210 hours per full course which is demanding. So if you cannot cope, best to take lesser courses per year rather than 4 full ones. Not easy to score as well.
Tutors are not that free. Many are working outside also. The only time you have is during lecture or immediately after lecture to ask questions.
Go to the UOL VLE and read the booklet "Strategies for Success" under the section of "Supporting Your Studies" for study tips.
Hi GQ Man,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your well wishes.
Before I provide any recommendations, I would like to make a few disclaimers:
(i) I did not study Bsc Banking & Finance, therefore I could not provide a definitive insight into the experience as a Banking & Finance student.
(ii) I studied the degree full-time, therefore I did not have any work-study experiences.
(iii) I have some interest in further studies, but I can never provide an advice like an actual senior who had completed a Masters/MBA under the European/US system.
However I will try my best to share the little I know thus far.
Firstly, there might be a need to assess the administration system in your desired schools. I have no doubt that LSE will take in UoL students because there were a few every cohort that went on to LSE. However the challenging part lies in the grades. Typically, the minimum requirement for Masters would be 2nd Upper Honors, but admission will also be subjected to work experiences and the type of Masters being taken.
Given the intense competition for LSE (and in Finance, one of the most popular courses), it will not be a stretch to claim that you need a First Class Honors to even stand a chance for the course interview.
I would not say that it is impossible for part-timers to obtain good honors. However the chances of doing so are very slim. The UoL Banking & Finance curriculum is known to be quite intensive and heavily theoretical. While it is not difficult to comprehend, there would be huge chunks of information to memorise and translate into good answers during the exams. Picture your A level exam season, and throw in the additional scenario that you had to work 11 hours per day with only 5 hours of sleep, and you will have a rough idea whether you can handle it. I am not exaggerating.
In addition, you need to consider your job scope. Is it relevant to what you study? Will the hours be irregular (e.g., project management, some role that operates in different timezone)? Are you able to take leave if during your prelims and exams season?
The UoL degree is a distance learning degree. It might not be recognised for admission to the schools of your choice in USA.
There are lecturers who will be open to consultation, but consultation sessions are not officially instituted by the school. Therefore most of the learning will depend on textbooks and your own efforts.
Lastly, the Msc Finance/MBA could be company-subsidised in the future. It might not be applicable (depending on the stage of your career). There might be better alternatives if your goal is more on career switch or advancement rather than intellectual fulfilment.
There are cheaper ways to attain the necessary qualifications within a more flexible/shorter timeframe. And networking might be more important than even your formal qualifications for certain jobs.
Look before you leap.
Best Regards,
Angsy
Hi there,
ReplyDeleteI stumbled on this post while browsing salary.sg and after reading through the post + comments, would just like to give my 2c worth. It is just my personal opinion, of course, but I feel that much of the prior discussion had missed the crux of the issue. Now I don't doubt that a SIM/ UoL education gives one a rigorous and comprehensive understanding of economics/ finance/ business etc etc. I would even go so far as to say that syllabus-wise, the difference between a NUS degree and a SIM degree is quite minimal. If a pair of identical twins go through each of the institutions, I doubt one would come out better off than the other.
So what?
Some purists might disagree with me, but I believe that in the labor market, the value of a degree lies in it being an honest signal of your competence. In other words, an NUS degree is inherently more valuable simply because NUS only accepts students above a certain quality benchmark – not because the course is in itself more difficult or better. It is the same reason why Harvard or Yale graduates who major in Ancient Philosophy or Russian Literature still manage to get highly coveted jobs at McKinsey, Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street/ Bulge bracket firms. What the study during their 4 years is irrelevant because employers are really looking for smart people who can pick things up quickly. Their acceptance to these hyper-selective schools is already a very strong signal of their intelligence and talent.
Don't get me wrong. A degree is not a true indicator of how well one will perform at the workplace. But keep this in mind: everyone wants the best talent for themselves, and they determine "best" based on signals of competence. Anyone can say that his course is very rigorous and very difficult and very comprehensive (OK honestly, which course isn't?). Anyone can say "I am qualified". But not everyone can get a branded degree. Thus, a branded degree has become a strong and reliable (and convenient) signal that people trust. By extension, the reason why recruiters don't look too highly upon SIM (and other private degree) grads is that those degrees send quite a bad signal about it's holder. Employers know that few people will chose SIM if they had a choice. Thus what's residual is people who had no choice, or to put it crudely, the people who couldn't go anywhere else. I'm not saying I agree with them (I don't!), but sadly, this is the logical equilibrium to the whole "game" of higher education.
In other words, unless SIM becomes more selective of the quality of it's intake (i.e. only accepts people above high GPA), SIM degrees will continue to send bad signals to employers, no matter how "recognized" or "accredited" they are.
I look forward to what you have to say about this.
Thanks. (:
Agree with your points.
DeleteInterestingly, the main assumption behind this train of thought is that the tertiary qualifications (A levels, Diploma, IB) of the student is a signal of quality. Essentially the university's quality is judged by its admissions.
Honestly, I had D,D,E for my three main A level subjects. Am I a "low quality" student? Judging from my A levels, I had performed very poorly and I won't be coy about it.
However "talent" is a matter of opinion. Some people hold a deterministic view of talent - you are "talented" to a certain extent and your life will proceed as a logical consequence of this set of talent(s). Therefore their deductive reasoning leads to the conclusion that "Talent > University > Good worker". (Caveat: I might be framing it in an over-simplistic manner, but my intention is merely to summarise a general position. I am not trying to construct a straw man argument.)
I do not subscribe to a deterministic view of talent because I am biased by my personal experiences.
Are the local universities the preferred choice? Definitely.
Should local universities set high requirements? Yes.
Should students who did not perform well in their tertiary education be given a chance to further their education? Yes.
Where could they continue their education?
I got the chance to study at SIM with my D,D,E, and I am grateful for it. If they had raised the entry criteria, I would not be able to study Economics (my family finances are relatively austere and overseas education is definitely not an option).
A friend once told me "SIM is not a second choice, it's a second chance."
The former is moot, but the latter is definitely true for me.
Hi Angsy,
ReplyDeleteI have stumbled upon your blog while searching regarding the SIM-UOL programme. I was rejected by NUS & NTU in my application to the business course (Accounting& Finance) despite applying with 3A* from A-Levels. I am Malaysian and I am thinking of enrolling to SIM for the UOL program. However, I'd like to know if there are any students who managed to twin to popular universities in the UK in their 2nd or 3rd year? And do you know of any seniors who had trouble looking for jobs after graduating from SIM-UOL (since every forum keeps emphasizing the lack of 'presentation' and assignments of the UOL programme being a problem to developing soft skills)?
Thank you (:
@MIching - Twinning is not a guaranteed option. In addition, the UoL Degree's lead college is LSE, which limits your choice of UK universities to... one.
DeleteTherefore it will be a make-or-break based on your Year 1 results.
See http://www.lse.ac.uk/study/UOLIP/transfer_change.aspx
"LSE welcomes applications from International programmes students who wish to apply to the second year of a relevant degree. Please bear in mind that transfer is not automatic, since competition is very fierce and LSE is restricted to numbers for both first and second year entries. The number of applications is very high compared to the number of vacancies and so the calibre of applicant is taken into consideration. Successful applicants need very good grades in their Diploma or foundation course examinations, and a strong academic background.
As a brief idea, generally departments would usually ask for an average of 60% in the diploma/degree foundation courses with at least 60% in three of the courses and a good pass in the fourth.
Another requirement for second year entry is that the courses taken via University of London International Programmes (EMFSS) match the content of the first year of the Internal degree as closely as possible. Courses should therefore be carefully selected.
Applicants need to apply through UCAS in the normal way, stating that they wish to apply for second year entry.
Transfer into the second year of the International Relations, International History & International Relations, BA History and LLB programmes is not permitted and neither is a transfer into the third year of any LSE programme."
Sorry to clarify - the UoL degree can be used to apply to other UK universities, but there is no guarantee. Hope it helps.
Delete"Other Universities in the UK may consider applications for students from University of London International Programmes. If you are thinking of transferring to another university, we advise you to find out by October (a year before you hope to transfer) what the procedures are for making an application. You should contact the admissions officers of the university concerned in the first instance and direct them to the University of London website which lists all the necessary information about the International Programmes.
To be considered for a place in any of the University of London colleges or for other Universities in the UK you will need to apply through UCAS, stating that you are applying for second year entry. Your local British Council office can advise you further. It is advisable to apply before the closing date in January and preferably well before this. If you study in a college, your academic tutor will be able to advise you."
Hey Angsy!
ReplyDeleteI've been reading your blog regularly and often revisit this page to check out the comments here. I must say I'm very happy to see you helping out many other UOL students in their struggle and problems through this blog :)
Thank god for you! I hope that more students would stumble upon this blog and read it to be encouraged in their journey of their student life in the UOL program.
Thank you so much for this insightful article. It was very great to learn about this topic Here are some information about BBA Entrance Exam Details. This will helpful for you If you are a candidate who wants to apply for a Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration you ended up in the right portal. Here you will be able to get all the crucial details and information about BBA course and its Entrance exam details.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for this insightful article. It was very great to learn about this topic.You should be aware of the following information about a Career after BBA: Scope, Job Opportunities, and Best Tips. Make sure you are aware of every detail of the courses you are about to enroll in. Before enrolling in these courses, be sure to familiarize yourself with all the pertinent material.
ReplyDelete