Tuesday, October 14, 2008

To think that just a few years ago, we were among the last to eat at the old canteen and study in the old admin block classrooms. I can still remember the flaking paint on the doors and the crumbling cork noticeboards (I think i had a good time pulling pieces off it). We were the last to walk around in a campus without plasma TVs hung at every turn of the corner. We were the last GEP students to be put in different classes. We experienced a change in headmaster in RI and a change in principal in RJ. And now this.

We are the group fortunate and at the same time unfortunate enough to witness the physical and abstract structures of education being revamped. In the eyes of the optimists we are the harbingers of change and the pioneers of a new age; to the pessimists we are but guinea pigs of failed experiments, marked for extinction just like dinosaurs and dodos were.

Let me first point out that a merger can have its merits. Look at NUSHS. Their school system is what i would call "seamless". They don't have rubbish like PW, and their syllabus is adjusted and evened out so that they learn more stuff, but at an overall leisurely pace.

Has RP been doing that? I'm afraid not. The evidence is obvious, at least for the subject of physics. NUSHS students learn the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian equations which we do not even begin to mention in our most in depth "enrichment" activities. Our H3 syllabus is to them, cake. And here is why: their syllabus is spread out, rather than doing some superficial separation of science into "o-level" and "a-level" science. A further merger is hence an exciting opportunity to fix this. Merge the corresponding departments, or at least maintain a good level of corroboration such that there is a smoother transition.

Unfortunately, the decision makers don't seem to want to go to the trouble of doing this. They would rather keep the 2 institutions separate, and put in place a superficial name change which, ironically, only makes its students feel out of place. The essence of the system and the problems caused by it remain. The "changes" that already took place and the "changes" which are about to take place are really convenient excuses for failure, the "changes" are then masqueraded, repackaged and resold as a remedies for the same failure they caused. It seems that "change" and its abuse is becoming increasingly fashionable.

Sometimes change is important and essential. At a junction, a green light has to change to yellow and then red, such that cars traveling in the perpendicular direction could pass. There may be a greater frequency of traffic accidents in the duration the yellow light is lit. People would try to rush past the junction before the red light lights up. Yet the yellow light is still essential in this case. It seems that the people at the top are randomly installing extra traffic lights in the middle of road sections and hoping something good would come of it. The cars, already moving slowly due to congestion, are forced to slow down, stop, and wait-- for nothing.