A recent Star Education article revealed that Science subjects are by far the favourite of post-PMR students in Malaysian school. Subsequently, I wrote an article to the editor of The Star. Here is the article which appeared in Star Education on 28th of January 2007.
——————–
I am of the opinion that the Government’s target of a 60:40 (science:arts) ratio reflects a biased stand. The Government places too much emphasis on science and technology. The role of economists, artists and musicians has not been as well acknowledged as the role of scientists in nation building.
According to the Gunn Report last year, Malaysia is the 16th most awarded advertising market in the world. Unfortunately, the Government shows little interest in further developing the advertising industry. Most people seem to be oblivious to the fact that advertising is the key to success in commercial activities because without advertising, products won’t sell. Instead, the Government has embarked on several science-related projects, with the Multimedia Super Corridor taking centre stage. More recently, there’s Biotech Corp. The Vision 2020 blueprint explicitly outlined the Government’s plan to establish a “scientific” and progressive society. The word “art” did not appear at all. In the article “Science wins hands down”, school principal Hasnah Hamid was quoted as saying students need to possess at least 5As in the PMR to enter the science stream. Another principal Mary Wong stated that students must score at least 2As to be in the science stream. Students who do not meet the entry requirements but insist on taking up science are given three months to try things out, after which they are assessed and asked to switch to the arts if they cannot cope. The message is clear – only the brightest can enter the science stream. This form of academic discrimination has caused the emergence of an identity associated with streams. For instance, the science stream is associated with bright and hard-working students whilst the arts is considered inferior. I scored eight As in my PMR three years ago, and was streamed into the science class. My interests were not taken into account. I was pretty sure of my inclinations at that time. I enjoy Physics but my love for Economics and Principles of Accounts prevail over that for Science-based subjects. I was about to approach the teacher-in-charge to switch streams when I changed my mind. Here’s why: If I were to join the Arts stream, I might be deprived of opportunities to get involved in dramas, competitions, etc. In my school, only the top classes get to be involved in such activities and these top classes are always science classes. This is even so for the Star-NiE Campaign for Rewards competition. If I had been in the Arts stream, I would not have been in the team which emerged champion in the Upper Secondary category. My friends in the arts stream did not even know about the competition. As for science subjects training you to be analytical and diligent, I have had a Physics teacher tell me, “Tak faham tak apa, hafal sahaja.” (It’s OK if you don’t understand, just memorise it.) Those were the teacher’s exact words. If that is the way to learn science, how is the analytical mind cultivated? This leads me to doubt whether being in the science stream has anything to do with being analytical, diligent and conscientious at all. My suggestion is, let interest be the only factor in determining the choice of subjects. For this to happen, there must be a broad-based system of education. I share the same sentiment as Taylor University College’s Anucia Jeganathan who said that more subjects should be offered to allow students to pursue subjects they enjoy. This would also help to abolish the identity associated with each stream and provide equal educational opportunities without academic segregation taking place. AARON LO
Via e-mail
——————–
Post a Comment