Singapore's educational edge.

Singapore has an educational edge, over its erstwhile imperial master. About twenty years ago, the UK dropped the rigorous O level examination, in favour of the more democratic GCSE. By "democratic" I mean that it is an exam meant for everyone, and not for the better students, as O level was. Singapore, however, wasn't fond of the democratic idea of the GCSE and continued to favour the elitist O level. The results are clear.

Twenty years later, Singapore continues to use the O level examination. (This is the one that Ainan took. He is the youngest person to have done so.) I think this is a promising situation for Singapore - and the other former colonies and members of the Commonwealth that use the O level - and a terrible situation for the UK.

The O level challenges the student on two levels: in terms of the level and detail of knowledge required - and in terms of the level of reasoning needed to use that knowledge to solve the problems set. GCSE is much weaker. Less knowledge and less reasoning are required - so much less, in fact, that those who pass the GCSE with good grades probably wouldn't pass the O level at all.

Now, this is a serious problem for the UK. Their students have been set a bar that is too low. This means that the more able students are not being stretched up to the age of 16. The bar was deliberately lowered because only the top 20 % of students were able to handle the O level at 16. This was was thought unfair, so the bar was lowered, with a new exam which more people would be able to cope with. In Singapore (and many other countries around the world), the decision was made to keep the bar high and challenge the students to reach it. Their thinking was not that things should be made easy for the students, but that the students should just get on with meeting the challenge. (However, Singapore did recognize the situation in its own way, not by scrapping O level, but by bringing in a second-tier exam, the N level, for the kind of students who would need GCSE in England. This meant the standard was preserved, at O level, and all were happy.)

I rather think that, in substituting an easier exam, for a harder one, the UK is undermining its own national competitiveness. By lowering the bar, they have lowered the potential of an entire nation.

The rest of the world did not follow the UK's lead. The old style UK exams of the O level (and A level) are still popular around the world. This means that the rest of the world is leading the UK, in educational standards, simply by keeping the standards that the UK once had. It seems somewhat ironic that the rest of the world could overtake the UK simply by aping what the UK once was - but the UK no longer remains.

My sons will take the O level. I don't want them to be underchallenged and I see no point in taking an exam that lowers the bar. There is no achievement in achieving less than they could achieve.

In the UK, however, when Ainan is mentioned, they say that he passed his "GCSE". This is wrong. He took O level - a much harder exam. However, I understand why the newspapers do that. It saves them from having to explain to their readers that the rest of the world did not dumb down by adopting the GCSE when the UK did - and that much of the rest of the world still takes O levels. It would, of course, be rather embarrassing, to have to explain that.

I do not want to see the nation of my childhood go into long-term decline. Yet, I cannot help but feel that by lowering its own internal standard, by dropping the "elitist" O level, in favour of the "democratic" GCSE, it is ushering in age of just such a decline. I rather hope that something is done to reverse it before it is too late.

Isn't it funny that the rest of the world remembers the standards of UK's bygone age...while the UK itself has forgotten them? In that memory, will the rest of the world find success, while the UK finds a long slow decline.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

The incommensurability of education systems

I have discussed this before, but it deserves to be addressed again, in another way and through the lens of another experience.

Education systems are not the same, the world over. The clearest divide is between the American education system and the old, traditional British one, still common throughout the Commonwealth and former colonies.

The American system prides itself on breadth. At every stage from first grade to "College" - there is breadth. The British system goes for depth: at every stage from the first year of school to the last year of University, there is greater depth, than in the American system. This leads to much incomprehension when Americans seek to understand the achievements of British style educated kids - and vice-versa. Quite simply: is it possible to compare breadth with depth? Are they commensurable?

My belief is that they are not readily comparable - for where the American loses in depth, they gain in breadth - and where the British/Commonwealth/European loses in breadth they gain in depth.

There is however one way we can compare them: cognitive complexity. The cognitive demands of an old-style British education of O Levels and A Levels followed by a single subject University degree are greater than at any given age in the American system. This is not a controversial statement. It is readily seen by looking at any online US based course designed for a given age and comparing what would be demanded under the traditional British style education at the same age.

What do I mean by cognitive demand? Well, the difficulty of a subject comes in the depth: the level of concepts and techniques, skills and knowledge that must be mastered. It is in the depth that this is to be found. In breadth, one is held largely to an introductory level of knowledge, simply because so many things are being looked at. In this way, the challenge doesn't deepen - and grow, thereby.

The American system probably catches up in Graduate School (I am not sure but that seems more specialized) - but a taught Graduate degree in the US is probably little more than a taught Undergraduate degree in the old-British style single subject system. This seems obvious because it CANNOT BE OTHERWISE when the Undergraduate US degrees have such breadth in them. Because of that breadth, they are limited in depth.

I will give you a practical example of the incommensurability of these systems at work. A few months back, Ainan and I sat through a University of Berkeley, California, Physics lecture. I presume it was a first year lecture because it was so very simplistic that Ainan, six at the time, who had no formal physics background, thought it very simple indeed. In fact, I would say it was pre-O level. That is the level it was pitched at was below a course of study normally started by 14 year olds and finished by 16 year olds in the old traditional British style education. It wasn't even hard enough to be called O level. It was late primary/early secondary level - and yet that was Berkeley. This set me thinking about the nature of education systems. Raymond Ravaglia's remark that the American system "teaches to the left of the distribution" also opened my eyes as to what was happening here.

This phenomenon of great breadth and little depth in the American system - and great depth but little breadth in the traditional British system - leads to the impossibility of either side understanding the academic achievements of the other, fully. There will always be some failure to understand what it is that the other has done and can do.

American Universities recruit students directly after O level, in Singapore. That shows that O level is equal to or above High School graduation standard. The Berkeley lecture makes me wonder how much above that standard it might be.

Yet, all is not lost for the American system. The great breadth means that an American educated child should be able to handle a great variety of tasks - and there is merit in that, too. It just depends on what the culture needs.

(If you would like to read about Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and four months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, three and Tiarnan, fourteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)