The myth of the brand name school.

In Singapore, there is the widely held belief that a big name school confers a successful life on its graduates. However, is this true?



If we were to do an experiment, we would select a group of people for whom all differences are controlled except for the one of school choice and then see what happens to the outcome of their lives. Fortunately, for my argument, this experiment has already been done. It is called a family I have heard about.



Now, this family is a model Singaporean family, in certain ways. There are several siblings in the family - the exact number wasn't revealed to me in the telling, but from the way the family was spoken of, the number cannot be any less than three and seemed to be more. All the siblings, but one, went to "big name schools". One of them, however - the black sheep of the family, if you will - didn't thrive in primary school and ended up in ITE (or "tech school"). Now, international readers should understand that ITE provides a practically oriented technical education and is, in Singaporean terms, conventionally thought suitable for those of lesser ability. It is not held in high respect in Singapore and seems, to an outsider, at least, to be looked down upon, by many (who have a University background, usually).



The siblings of this ITE trained young man, all went on to University, all "succeeded" in their educations, in the conventionally expected sense. However, many years later, something very, very strange has happened. One person in the family has truly succeeded in real life - all the others have failed.



Yes. That is right - the ITE trained sibling has become a great success and all his University educated siblings are leading mediocre careers of no distinction. The ITE trained sibling earns far more than his brothers - and, in fact, not infrequently, they approach him for money. How he deals with that, I don't know. Yet, it seems to me that there is something very informative about this family tale. It says to me that it is not the school you go to, nor the education you receive that truly determines your success in life - it is who you are, as a person.



The ITE trained sibling had the right set of attitudes, spirit and other qualities of mind, to prove himself of great value in the workplace. His employers found him very capable and so promoted him rapidly. Indeed, without revealing too much about him, he was made the YOUNGEST manager in his field, at a large company, that they have ever appointed. Yet, he only had a secondary education and never secured a degree. His degree holding brothers did not have the right attitudes, spirit and qualities, were not held in high esteem by their employers and have not done well in their careers - despite holding degrees from "big name schools".



This example upends the whole means by which Singaporeans like to measure their fellow citizens: by their education. It is not the education that counts - it is who you are, as this family have learnt. Here, the one with ostensibly the poorest education, is leading the most successful life. What does that say about the Singaporean obsession with education? Is it misplaced? Have they overlooked more important characteristics that determine whether or not someone will succeed?



It would be easy, on paper, to underestimate the ITE trained sibling. It would be easy to dismiss him as "not having a degree" - but there is an employer in Singapore, who is very glad to have given this particular person a chance to show what they can do. Many employers would not have done that. Yet, this ITE trained sibling is not only the star of his family, but is a star of his company...all because someone looked beyond what he had to offer on paper, and saw what he had to offer in person.



I cannot help but feel that Singapore, in general, would be better off, if employers were all as his is: if they took the time to see each individual as they are, rather than just examined whether they came from a "big name school". Perhaps, then, they would make better hiring decisions. You see sometimes it is not the name of the school that is big - it is the nature of the person themselves. I, personally, would much rather hire a big person, than a big school.

(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.)

A Global Search for a University

We are looking for a University for Ainan because he will soon have taken A level - and once he has done that, he would need further opportunity to study - otherwise he would stagnate.

A level is at the level of a Major in an American Bachelor's degree. Ainan is ready to do that soon. But what will he do then? We have nothing in place at present, so we have to line something up for him. We are, therefore, interested in hearing from any University, worldwide that offers Chemistry and other sciences.

Our needs are quite specific, but a University need not meet all of our needs to be acceptable. Firstly, the University must have a strong Chemistry department. Then they should offer a wide spectrum of other sciences especially Physics, Material Sciences, Geology and Astronomy, as well as, ideally, Nanotechnology and Biology. These are secondary interests.

The medium of instruction should be English. The culture should be warm, accepting and welcoming. It should be a supportive, co-operative environment. Too many Universities are overly competitive, aggressive and hostile environments (in my view). That would not suit Ainan.

The University should be prepared to offer mentors. He is young and their guidance would be helpful. It should also be located in a relatively safe place. We don't want to have to worry about such things, unduly.

We are prepared to look anywhere in the world that is a reasonably comfortable place to live. As long as the University can provide a nurturing environment we would be interested in hearing from them.

If you are with a suitable University, or know of any, please contact us and tell us the details. We will then correspond to see if anything can be worked out.

Your help in this is very much appreciated. Thanks.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eleven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and four months, and Tiarnan, twenty-one 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, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Does College make you fat?

I remember being slim once. It was before I went to University. So slender was I, that I even had the proverbial "six-pack". Ah well. So, am I alone in my observation? Am I the only one to leave University heavier than when I arrived?

No. Not by a long way, if a 2005 study by researchers at Washington University, St. Louis is anything to go by. The work was published in the Journal of American College Health.

Principal investigator, Susan S. Deusinger, obtained height and weight data for 764 incoming freshmen at Washington University. At the end of the year, students being students (and therefore implicitly unreliable) only 290 returned for reassessment, despite being offered financial incentives.

However this was enough to decide whether the folklore of the "Freshman 15" (the number of pounds you would gain, along with your courseload in your first year), had any substance. It did. But not quite 15 pounds. Seventy per cent of freshmen students gained an average of nine pounds in their first year.

Researchers were unable to pinpoint a cause. They noted that there were no noticeable changes in dietary habits, or exercise levels from the start of the year, to the end (awful at both ends, by all accounts). Whatever the cause of the gain, it does show that going to College, does make you fat.

Parents of College going children, have, thus, one more thing to worry about: the health of their offspring. It might be wise to educate them a little in wise food choices - and other lifestyle measures, before they leave your sight.

Note, however, that this study only examined the American college student population - it did not address the issue of whether this was a global phenomenon (though it probably is).

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eight months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and one month, or Tiarnan, eighteen 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, genetics, left-handedness, College, University, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

The Open University is closed.

The Open University is a UK institution formed with the idea of opening up a tertiary education to people who would not otherwise be able to access it. Many have taken degrees while holding down full time jobs, pursuing their studies, at a distance, without having to be resident in a University (though they do have short-term residential modules, too). All in all, it sounds like a good idea...but it isn't flawless.

I decided to see just how open, the "Open" University really was. I wrote to them, telling them of Ainan, 7, and his need to continue his studies at a University, in the near future. How near that future is, depends on how long I can keep him satisfied at home, on my own resources - for no educational provision that he is receiving on a formal basis is presently meeting his needs. Obviously, I will not be able to keep him stimulated indefinitely: my home, for one, lacks a lab and there are many things I cannot teach him purely from the context of a book and his Dad. He teaches himself many things, too - but again, there are limits - for we don't have personal access to the equipment he would need to develop the practical side of his gifts.

Therefore, I am looking at the University issue, for Chemistry. I thought that the Open University might make it relatively uncomplicated to move on to higher studies since their courses were specifically designed for distance learning. Ainan would be able to pursue a degree with them, while handling whatever other matters he needed to attend to, here in Singapore. That was the idea, anyway.

However, after a few days, I received the following reply:

Dear Mr Cawley

Thank you for your email.

Study with the Open University is normally open to individuals over eighteen years of age; however, we do have a Young Applicants in Schools Scheme (YASS). Unfortunately, Singapore is outside of the area in which the YASS scheme is offered and therefore I am afraid we are unable to offer any study opportunities for your son.

I replied to them, but they didn't get back to me.

Thus, despite describing themselves as "Open" - and despite having been founded on a principle of opening up education to new people who do not have access, Ainan was refused on the basis of age - and bureaucracy. There is an allowance in their scheme for Young Applicants - but that only applies to the UK as far as I am aware.

It seems to me, that often with institutions, the spirit with which they were founded gets lost along the way - so it seems with the "Open" University. They were brought to being with an admirable purpose, but it is not true to say that they still fully serve it. Ainan is outside the norm with regards to his academic needs - a University founded on serving those who do not fit the norm, really, really should have made an exception to any rules that stand in his way: that would have been serving the spirit with which it was founded - and not the letter of any bureaucratic encumbrance that has since accreted.

Not many children need to go to University significantly early (except perhaps in America, where the academic demands ramp up much more slowly than in Europe) - so it should not be beyond universities to make the few exceptions that need to be made to allow these prodigious children to flourish. It costs them nothing to oblige and support these children - but there is a very high price to pay for their societies, in not supporting them: a price of wasted gifts.

So, as ever, I suspect, with any parent of a prodigious child, I am still seeking a better academic fit for his needs. The matter becomes more urgent over time - for as his abilities grow, so does the demand in having to meet them. At some point, it may not be tenable to do so alone without the backing of an appropriate institution. We will see. In the meantime, I will do what I have always done: whatever I can.

(If you would like to read more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Tiarnan, seventeen months, or Fintan, four years and no 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.)

The problem with Universities

Universities are often not the havens of academia that they are portrayed to be in movies and literature. There is a very profound problem with many of them.

A University may be of two kinds, in the pure sense: a teaching University and a research University. From what I have seen, it is often the latter kind of University that wins attention and praise and fame, and for which students all over the world compete for admission. I went to Cambridge University - a great research University. However, all research Universities suffer from a very human problem. The staff are researchers, not teachers.

At a research University, it is usual for the staff to have mixed duties: they have their research and they have their teaching duties. You might think that this could create a situation in which students benefit from "cutting-edge" thinking from their famous researcher/Professor. This is usually not the case. What is more common is that the famous researcher type is really only engaged by his research work and couldn't care less about his - or her - students. That was most certainly the impression left on me by my University. The research staff really were only concerned about their research: students were in most cases seemingly regarded as an inconvenience - a distraction from the purity of their research.

Thus, what is a student to do? Well, I would, if I had my life again, ignore all famous research Universities for an Undergraduate or First Degree. I would go somewhere that had, at its heart, a love of teaching (if such a University could be found). I would not even be tempted to attend somewhere famous for its research - for such a place would tend to ignore its student base, for its own inward looking research work.

Perhaps a new norm should be established. Students should attend specialized teaching Universities for their first degrees - and only later, should they go to a research University - when they are doing a research degree. No-one should have to suffer the experience of being ignored by research staff intent on their personal research, at the expense of their teaching duties. That is a terrible experience that usually destroys the student's love of learning. So many people that I know who went to famous research Universities were very disappointed with the experience. It often destroyed the lives they had planned, in a very profound way.

So, if you have a bright child, I would suggest that you look beyond the famed Universities. Sometimes the less famous, more teaching based institution may be a far more welcoming place, than a place that has built its reputation on research, but not on teaching.

In many ways, this is one of my more important posts.

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and no months, or Tiarnan, seventeen 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.)

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.)

Should child prodigies go to University?

This question was asked in a search by a visitor to my site today. It is important to know that their ISP was for an American University, so it is probable that the searcher is an academic or administrator of some kind who is wrestling with the question of whether or not to admit a particular child prodigy as a student.

My first reaction to their question, is why do they ask it? Many people, when confronted with a child prodigy, ask whether they are likely to be socially well-adjusted and my reply to them would be that there is no more reason to suppose they will be maladjusted than anyone else. The reason I say this is that being a prodigy, does not mean that one will have any particular social problem. Prodigy is not Asperger's - and only a very small minority of prodigies would be the autism scale. Most prodigies will be normal in their social development, eventually, even if they are advanced intellectually. It is that latter fact that may make a difference. You see, the prodigy is likely to "click" with those who are older than themselves and smarter than average.

So, I would say that far from being a misfit at University - as was the implicit worry of the University searcher above - that the prodigy is more likely to fit in at University (if they are a true prodigy and show adult level mental development, as a child, in their domain) than they are to fit in at primary/elementary school, or middle school or wherever their age would determine that they should be.

The child prodigy will only feel at home where they feel that they are among INTELLECTUAL peers - for that is what they will measure others against: their question being - "Do these people understand me?" The answer will be 'yes' only among their intellectual matches - smart adults.

So, do not hinder a child prodigy's progress to University, but enable it, for it is likely that only in such an environment will they finally feel at home.

There is one more point to add: if a child has mastered all the school level curriculum in their field, they cannot simply stop learning, but must go on to University to continue their development. To prevent them from doing so on the basis of age would be a grave error.

I hope the reader who searched for this question sees this, and, if making the decision, allows the child prodigy a place at their University.

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

Britain rejects its child prodigies

Child prodigies are rare children - so very few children are able to master adult domains while still of tender years. One would have thought that any developed society would treasure, therefore, the few of these children that are found in their midst.

Not so Britain, the only country that I can think of that calls itself Great. I used to live in Britain and there is much that I liked about it...but there is one thing that cannot be liked by anyone with an unbiased mind: an education system that excludes child prodigies.

Recently, in the British media, a case was discussed of a child prodigy, aged 13, who had just completed his A levels, who found every door, in every University, closed to him. Not a single University in Britain would accept a child prodigy. Each said he was too young to be allowed to learn in their hallowed halls. Well, wait just one minute: isn't that the whole point of child prodigies, that they are younger than usual, at any developmental stage? What kind of country is it that SPECIFICALLY discriminates against child prodigies? Incidentally, what kind of future does such a country have? Reason would suggest that an adult genius is more likely to be drawn from the ranks of child prodigies. A single child prodigy could grow up to be a genius who changes the world. Yet, Britain discriminates against child prodigies. No child prodigy is now allowed to proceed to University until they are aged 17. That is rather too late for a thirteen year old A level candidate - and others like him. What is a child prodigy to do in all those wasted years, while his age-mates play catch-up? Grow bored? Lose interest in academia? Forget all that he has learnt? Give up? Is that what Britain wants...for all its child prodigies to give up and start behaving like all the other kids and take a slow measured pace to their learning?

It is sad that education should be so partial. Education should be a right for all. Yet Britain is actively denying an education to its, admittedly few, child prodigies.

Any child prodigy in this situation should just leave Britain for somewhere else - for one's intellectual growth should not wait for a country to wake up to what it is doing. If such a child prodigy then decides to stay and make a life in the new country - then so be it. Any country which denies child prodigies an education does not deserve any better.

The Universities would say that it is not their fault. A new law requires them to screen all their staff for their suitability to teach children under 17. Yet, there is a sign of great laziness here - and essential stinginess. The Universities have been presented with a choice: either screen their staff for their appropriateness (ie safety) in teaching young children - or don't take such children. Rather than make the effort to screen their staff (and shouldn't they be screened ANYWAY, since a staff member who is a danger to a thirteen year old may very well be a danger to eighteen year olds, too, wouldn't you think?) every University in Britain has chosen the other path: simply to reject all candidates under seventeen automatically. Not one University in Britain can be bothered to make the effort of making its institution accessible to the youngest and brightest students.

So, whose fault is it then: the lawmakers or the Universities? The lawmakers made the law - and they may have meant well by doing so - but the effect of the law is to place a barrier in front of Universities that none of them wish to climb. Yet, to achieve a fair education system open to all, all that the Universities have to do is screen their staff for their safety with children. None of them have chosen to do so. Thus, the Universities of Britain have universally chosen to exclude child prodigies from being educated at all. Those who are best at learning are not allowed to learn, if they live in Britain.

Maybe Britain was "Great" once...but by excluding child prodigies it is not adding to its greatness, but diminishing itself as a nation and quite possibly harming its future. You see, not many children grow up to be geniuses - and it only takes one more genius to make the difference between a great nation - and an also ran. Britain has shown what it wants its future to be: a bit like its present, only worse - Britain, in choosing to exclude child prodigies, also chooses to be a second-rate nation.

What does all of this fuss mean? It means that British Universities are firstly, too lazy to ensure the safety of the children in their midst - and secondly care not at all about the idea that education should be open to all. It is quietly astonishing that EVERY University in Britain, should have chosen to exclude child prodigies, because they would have to do something to be able to accept them. Shame on you all.

(If you would like to read about my scientific child prodigy son, Ainan Celeste Cawley, seven years and two weeks, who doesn't live in Britain and therefore may very well find a University to accept him at the appropriate time, then please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html for a tour. I also write of child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)