What a turnabout of events. When it was first reported that 4.3%, now they have clarified is it close to 20%.
Let's look at the report closely.
"The three local universities will provide 14,685 places this year, a 10 percent increase from the previous year." From the first report.
"In fact, out of the 23,000 foreign students who applied for local universities, the actual number admitted was 4,218." From the second report.
So, the percentage of foreign students in Singapore is 28.72%. which means that slightly more than 1 out of 4 students in our local university is foreigner.
"Full fees for foreign students enrolled in non-lab courses in local universities are about S$26,000 a year.
This year, nearly 19,000 foreign students applied for local universities and did not get in, which translates to over S$480 million in lost revenue annually."
I would say WAH! SO MUCH MONEY LOST!
Hey wait. Look at the first sentence. "The three local universities will provide 14,685 places this year" Let me think. Isn't 19,000 more than 14,685? I guess not, in the eyes of our journalist here.
Let's read more into the line. If i am not wrong(disclaimer), locals include PR. Not that i have anything against PRs, but then i would like to think being a citizen should get some privileges, especially those who serve National Service.
"In Singapore, the priority of universities is to meet the demand from local students."
"It has capped the number of government-subsidised foreign students in Singapore at 20 percent because it does not want schools to expand too quickly.
However, this cap makes it difficult for universities to take in more full fee-paying foreign students."
After reading this this all makes sense. So 20% of the foreign students are subsidised and that is the cap, if there are more foreign students with us, it means they are paying full fees, which means there is no effective cap at all, contrary to popular belief. This is only an opinion express and may not reflect the actual situation though.
If the priority is to meet the demand of local students, the economics of the situation should not be taken into consideration.
" "Foreign students bring diversity to the university. Can you imagine a university classroom (with) 100 percent Singapore students? Too homogenous a group is not going to create that diversity in learning," said Professor Tan Chin Tiong, Deputy President and Provost of Singapore Management University. "
We are not against having foreign students but more than 25% of them in a cohort at the expense of local students, isn't it a bit too much? And remember, the priority is to meet the demand of local students.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
HAKKAisBEST
h@k.ka
Singapore is a very lucky land indeed. Either it is blessed by the gods or it is a protectorate of the Devil’s.
The rains must have been ‘held back’ for a long, long while today. For the NDP fireworks display rehearsal to be over.
Because as SOON as the last of these very expensive explosives was released, the heavens opened up! AT ONCE and without a nanosecond’s delay! And what a heavy downpour it was – still is.
SPOO~~KY
And does anyone know if we – or the parade organizers, rather – hire the services of BOMOHS (or shamans or voodoo masters, whoever) to WARD OFF the rains (in the same way Indonesian farmers engage them to bring on the rains during droughts) on the big day itself?
For in ALL THESE THIRTY-SEVEN YEARS of my existence, I have had witnessed rain falling on August 9th BUT ONCE AND ONCE ONLY! (Can anyone still recall which year that was?).
With all the time, MONEY and effort – not to mention the enormous logistics expensed and manpower mobilized – poured into making each year’s parade run smoothly, one can only – safely - assume someone somewhere must be seeking ‘help’ (divine or otherwise) somehow to make sure the rains get stopped in their tracks.
After all, it’s peanuts money compared to the millions dished out for such an event.
All said, my money this year is on NO RAIN (AGAIN) ON AUGUST 9TH itself proper – I wonder if Ladbrokes have any odds on that.
But anyone of you can try to bet AGAINST ME though – one pays 42, if you win (i.e. it rains on August 9th and the parade/celebrations are called off).
Good rate, yes? I’m feeling generous, that’s why. And it’s the nation’s 42nd birthday, you see.
But like the national gaming operator, I accept bets no less than $1 – $0.20 surcharge if you bet using NETS, $0.02 if NETS CashCard or ez-Link, none if cash.
Oh, this bet shop is open round the clock. And no, no midnight surcharges too - flat-rated, staggered, incremental or otherwise – so fret not, bet* as much as you want and as often as you like.
PLAY RESPONSIBLY. Thank you.
*NO PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 PERMITTED TO PLACE BETS OR COLLECT WINNINGS. NO STUDENTS IN UNIFORM ALLOWED TO STEP INSIDE THESE PREMISES.
You didn't read carefully.
>>Let me think. Isn't 19,000 more than 14,685? I guess not, in the eyes of our journalist here.>>
19,000 refers to the potential maximum number of foreign students ie how many applied. 14,685 refers to total capacity at the 3 unis. The comparison is that demand far exceeds capacity, so the potential revenue was lost.
The implication is that we could have made a lot more money if we expanded capacity.
>>So 20% of the foreign students are subsidised and that is the cap, if there are more foreign students with us, it means they are paying full fees, which means there is no effective cap at all, contrary to popular belief. >>
The cap is on subsidized places, not on total enrollment. There is no cap on foreign enrollment. Whether a cap is a good idea is a separate issue.
Post a Comment