Actually, I feel that we would need both the library and the internet to gain knowledge. The library is known for the accuracy in its books, but the internet has the convenience. While surfing the internet, we will not be able to know whether a source is reliable and whether the information that it provide will not be true. However, the information sources provided by the library will definitely be reliable, although they are very troublesome to be found.
One of the advantage of using the internet is that all kinds of sources can be easily found, unlike in the past where knowledge will take a long time to be passed around. The internet will also include more than one viewpoint of the issue that you are researching on. Using the internet also provide convenience to the user, as we don't need to step out of our homes in search of information.
In my opinion, in order to get reliable sources easier, we can make use of both the two different methods together. We can firstly search for information from the internet and look for books that might be useful in our research, and if required, make a trip to the library to confirm on the credibility of the source, look for the book that we found on the internet and do more research in the library with the books provided by the library itself. This way, we will be able to find accurate sources faster.
However, although with the new search engines like "Google" which helps us to look for relevant information easier, the internet is still not as organised as the library. In some library that installed the automatic search engine which can help us locate books easily, it will ease the process of searching. Moreover, we can also enjoy the advantage of having librarians around. As they are properly trained, they will be able to assist us in our search, and sometimes, find other relevant information for us.
In regards to using internet, copyright issue may not be observed carefully by many. Due to the convenience, copy and pasting happens very frequently, often without crediting the source, worse still, claiming the work as their own. This will bring harmful effects to the individual. When found out, he'll need to face the law and also, he doesn't really gain the knowledge from the source as he did not do it himself.
In conclusion, I find it very important for people to balance out their source of knowledge from both the internet and the library. One also have to observe certain rules and regulations regarding the copyright issue and be sure not violate them.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
A gift of a programme
I think that the Gifted Education Programme (GEP) is successful in nurturing the top students in Singapore. GEP is an academic programme that is designed for the top 1% of pupils in Singapore. As the students are trained from young, it is very effective as if they realise their strength earlier, they can improve in it better. We have the responsibity to nurture our future generations and the GEP can fulfill this mission.
The programme provides certain extra resources for the students under it to develop wisdom, moral values and not forgetting creativity in out youths to ensure that they will be prepared to take ont he role of leaders int the future. For countries like Singapore that only has manpower as a resource, developing gifted people is very important for the future. The GEP not only benefits the students under it, but it also benefits the society as a whole.
However, it is necessary for students that are going through the programme to make some small sacrifices. Stress is one of them. In some cases, GEP students are unable to perform better than those that are in the mainstream and hence feels very stressful. However, this kind of situations are rather common due to the different in standards for the GEP and the mainstream.
The GEP has often been criticised for being elitist. GEP students are often being portrayed as arrogant and snobbish. Though this may hold true for some of the individuals, but we should not be committing hasty generalisation. There are certainly some of them that will be better in attitude. In a school, equality and unity is very important to ensure that the nation will also be the same in the future. I think that this problem can be solved if we allow more interaction between the mainstream and GEP students.
All in all, I believe the GEP still holds benefits to Singapore, and we should continue to nurture students under the programme. However, we must also not forget about the non-GEP students as some of them still holds untold potential.
The programme provides certain extra resources for the students under it to develop wisdom, moral values and not forgetting creativity in out youths to ensure that they will be prepared to take ont he role of leaders int the future. For countries like Singapore that only has manpower as a resource, developing gifted people is very important for the future. The GEP not only benefits the students under it, but it also benefits the society as a whole.
However, it is necessary for students that are going through the programme to make some small sacrifices. Stress is one of them. In some cases, GEP students are unable to perform better than those that are in the mainstream and hence feels very stressful. However, this kind of situations are rather common due to the different in standards for the GEP and the mainstream.
The GEP has often been criticised for being elitist. GEP students are often being portrayed as arrogant and snobbish. Though this may hold true for some of the individuals, but we should not be committing hasty generalisation. There are certainly some of them that will be better in attitude. In a school, equality and unity is very important to ensure that the nation will also be the same in the future. I think that this problem can be solved if we allow more interaction between the mainstream and GEP students.
All in all, I believe the GEP still holds benefits to Singapore, and we should continue to nurture students under the programme. However, we must also not forget about the non-GEP students as some of them still holds untold potential.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Don't slay the goose that lays golden eggs
Singapore government had already decided for the building of the IR, which in turn caused even more debates before it is built. There are a lot of different articles published on the issue of IR, and each with a different viewpoint.
Some believe that the government is making a very risky decision, and it may in fact cause the opposite effect from what we desire. As we all know, gambling have a very negative impact that will cause harmful consequences. However, there will always be an opposite side of the picture. The government have the responsibility to ensure that the people be benefited, so what are the benefits that the people will gain?
Building of the IR will bring a lot of business opportunity to Singaporeans. With the increase in number tourist coming to visit the IR, we will have more opportunities to boost our economy. With the tourist, hotels, restaurant, shopping mall and other aspects of economy will be benefited, and they will be likely to earn a profit. It will also create jobs for the people that need it in this time of a global financial crisis.
However, traditional moral values oppose people gambling. Gambling is often seen as something that will definitely bring harmful effects to the people. Youths will probably be curious of how a real casino be like and step into it, in the end finding themselves unable to leave. Having more gamble addicts will only waste Singapore's resources. There will be a risk of having an increase in crime rate. Singapore, being a country that's long known to be safe and secure, will be viewed differently after that.
Generally, I think that people oppose to the building of IR as they are afraid that Singapore will be plunged into a series of problems after that and many do not understand why the government that's always oppose gambling will have a sudden change of mind. However, one must remember that IR does not only include the casino, there will also be shopping malls, restaurants, hotels and theme parks in it.
In conclusion, I think that the government has its reason for building the IR, but we need to be informed of the reason. We must also be prepared for all the problems that having an IR will probably bring and unsures that Singapore remains a safe environment.
Some believe that the government is making a very risky decision, and it may in fact cause the opposite effect from what we desire. As we all know, gambling have a very negative impact that will cause harmful consequences. However, there will always be an opposite side of the picture. The government have the responsibility to ensure that the people be benefited, so what are the benefits that the people will gain?
Building of the IR will bring a lot of business opportunity to Singaporeans. With the increase in number tourist coming to visit the IR, we will have more opportunities to boost our economy. With the tourist, hotels, restaurant, shopping mall and other aspects of economy will be benefited, and they will be likely to earn a profit. It will also create jobs for the people that need it in this time of a global financial crisis.
However, traditional moral values oppose people gambling. Gambling is often seen as something that will definitely bring harmful effects to the people. Youths will probably be curious of how a real casino be like and step into it, in the end finding themselves unable to leave. Having more gamble addicts will only waste Singapore's resources. There will be a risk of having an increase in crime rate. Singapore, being a country that's long known to be safe and secure, will be viewed differently after that.
Generally, I think that people oppose to the building of IR as they are afraid that Singapore will be plunged into a series of problems after that and many do not understand why the government that's always oppose gambling will have a sudden change of mind. However, one must remember that IR does not only include the casino, there will also be shopping malls, restaurants, hotels and theme parks in it.
In conclusion, I think that the government has its reason for building the IR, but we need to be informed of the reason. We must also be prepared for all the problems that having an IR will probably bring and unsures that Singapore remains a safe environment.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Get a JC Diploma
I feel that the JC diploma system is useful in distinguishing the best among the better students in the GCE A-levels exams, but it should not be a replacement of the A-levels. Although the JC diploma is very effective in gauging a student's holistic development that includes non-academics units such as sports and leadership, it could not possibly replace the A-levels.
Nowadays, students that scored high amount of As for their A-levels find it increasingly difficult to find a position in top universities as there are a lot of competition going around. The A-levels only tests the students on how well they memorize their concepts and knowledge learned and though filters out the "good" and "bad" students from the whole student population, some students that did not work hard will still pass through. This is when the JC diploma can be used, to act as a second layer of filter and to select the cream of the crop. However, the A-levels exam serves as the foundation of the JC diploma, without it, the diploma system will also fail.
Universities would want students that excels in their studies and in the same time can manage other commitments that may enhance their learning. The JC diploma is able to select this kind of students that can manage their time well, as it also includes other aspects such as competitions and project work. However, the JC diploma would not work if it was to replace the A-levels. For example, some students may only participate in their co-curriculum activities and other project work not because that they want to or have the passion or interest for that particular activity, but for the diploma itself. Once they have the key to the universities that they desire, they would just stop what they are doing and hence lose the real qualities of the diploma holder. This will cause another "hole" in the system where some "bad" students can just pass through.
The JC diploma's main purpose is to enhance a student's learning experience. If it was to be made compulsory, then its objective would not be met. Learning would lean towards non-academics and what is the point of having the diploma when the students dont even have the knowledge required for the universities?
In conclusion, I do not think that the A-levels exam should be dropped, but the JC diploma can be used as an optional assessment to gauge the student's abilities. Instead of being a compulsory exam, it should be something optional for the top students if they want to be recognized for their effort and exceptional abilities and boost their portfolios.
Nowadays, students that scored high amount of As for their A-levels find it increasingly difficult to find a position in top universities as there are a lot of competition going around. The A-levels only tests the students on how well they memorize their concepts and knowledge learned and though filters out the "good" and "bad" students from the whole student population, some students that did not work hard will still pass through. This is when the JC diploma can be used, to act as a second layer of filter and to select the cream of the crop. However, the A-levels exam serves as the foundation of the JC diploma, without it, the diploma system will also fail.
Universities would want students that excels in their studies and in the same time can manage other commitments that may enhance their learning. The JC diploma is able to select this kind of students that can manage their time well, as it also includes other aspects such as competitions and project work. However, the JC diploma would not work if it was to replace the A-levels. For example, some students may only participate in their co-curriculum activities and other project work not because that they want to or have the passion or interest for that particular activity, but for the diploma itself. Once they have the key to the universities that they desire, they would just stop what they are doing and hence lose the real qualities of the diploma holder. This will cause another "hole" in the system where some "bad" students can just pass through.
The JC diploma's main purpose is to enhance a student's learning experience. If it was to be made compulsory, then its objective would not be met. Learning would lean towards non-academics and what is the point of having the diploma when the students dont even have the knowledge required for the universities?
In conclusion, I do not think that the A-levels exam should be dropped, but the JC diploma can be used as an optional assessment to gauge the student's abilities. Instead of being a compulsory exam, it should be something optional for the top students if they want to be recognized for their effort and exceptional abilities and boost their portfolios.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)