Cambridge University: should a creative person study there?

No.

(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.

IMDB is the Internet Movie Database for film and tv professionals. If you would like to look at my IMDb listing for which another fifteen credits are to be uploaded, (which will probably take several months before they are accepted) please go to: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3438598/ As I write, the listing is new and brief - however, by the time you read this it might have a dozen or a score of credits...so please do take a look. My son, Ainan Celeste Cawley, also has an IMDb listing. His is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3305973/ My wife, Syahidah Osman Cawley, has a listing as well. Hers is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

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

Where every school is a "military" school

Foreigners can tell us more about a country than any native can. Foreign eyes see things in new ways, having evaluated them from a different perspective. That is why the wise listen to the comments of those from overseas: it is a chance to see one's country as it really is and not as it is said to be.

I have a friend from South America. He is living and working here, with his family. His attention is turning to the choice of schools for his daughter, since she is approaching that age. By chance, he visited my son's school (he lives in the same area as us), drank in the atmosphere, and had a look at the school rules. What he saw, surprised him.

The only type of school that bore comparison to the one in Singapore, that he saw, were MILITARY SCHOOLS back in Latin America. Only in such schools would there be so many school rules and so much restriction of behaviour. His first thought on entering the school was: "This is a military school". The strange thing is, it didn't call itself one: it is a typical Singaporean school.

The question is, therefore, are ALL schools in Singapore "military" by comparison to international standards of regimentation and regulation? Certainly, they seem so to South American eyes. They seem rather too regulated to my eyes, too.

Let us ask ourselves what is the purpose of a military school. It is to create absolute conformity of thought and action and blind, unthinking obedience to every command. It is to create little robots who won't mind getting themselves shot in the name of their country. Could it be, therefore, that the purpose of Singaporean schooling is to create absolute conformity of thought and action and blind, unthinking obedience to every command? What use would that be to a democratic society? None at all. However, it would be of great use if the purpose was to ensure that the population could never think for themselves and would be easy to manage.

I worry, therefore, for my children, receiving such regulated schooling. It is quite stifling to see the burden of rules under which they labour. Surely, there are better ways to educate children than to tie them down, too restrictively - so much so, that, to an outsider, they look like cadets in a military school?

Nothing is accidental in Singapore. I have come to learn that these past nine years. It is no accident, therefore, that Singapore's education ministers come from military backgrounds. They are all former staff of the armed forces. Clearly, they have been chosen for a reason. Clearly, they are expected to bring their military experience to bear on the task of guiding the nation's education. A military man is not to be put in charge of education, unless one wants that education to have a military flavour. That military men are always chosen, to be education minister, rather confirms the impression of my South American friend, that Singapore's schools are rather like military schools from overseas.

Indeed, it is most telling that the new education minister, whose name eludes me right now (he has just been appointed), is also, as I understand it, 2nd Minister for Defence. The connection between education and the military could not be more explicit, therefore.

There is, however, a problem in all this. Military people generally don't think too well. They act. In fact, thinking too much is counter-productive in the heat of battle: it might bring hesitation and that brings death. So, any school system which is militaristic in any way, would tend to suppress thinking in its people. Singapore's system is doing just that.

This is a foolish long term strategy for Singapore. Without a thinking people, Singapore is reliant on overseas talent. Yet, overseas talent will only come here so long as the offer is more attractive than the next place. That is an unsustainable situation, in the long term, because Singapore always has to fight to be more attractive than the next place. There are over 200 other places people could go. I don't see the odds being in Singapore's favour, in the long term. Other places will overshadow it. Other places will be able to offer more.

The answer is, of course, to encourage thinking in its own native population. To do that, one should drop the militaristic style of education here. A good start would be to begin to appoint education ministers who have actually been teachers - and good teachers at that. Preferably teachers who were not trained in Singapore, to teach in a Singaporean way. Then one might begin to get education that is actually about education - and not education that is about absolute conformity of thought and action and blind unthinking obedience to every command.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and one month, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and seven months, and Tiarnan, two years exactly, 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, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

The gifted and the standardized classroom

In most parts of the world - the modern world, at least - education is all about standardization. The same "education" is given to all, irrespective of their actual need. Paradoxically, this emphasis on the "same for all" leads to a situation where many are ill-served by it.

Those who have some degree of impairment are lost in a standard classroom. Oddly, this situation is recognized and appreciated and those who are "left of the bell curve" usually receive some special attention.

In some classrooms, there will be a child unlike the others. They are usually quieter. Often, they are a little dreamy. Their work may be erratic - capable of perfection, but often showing signs of disinterest. Teachers often don't like them. This is frequently a "gifted child". So, this, then, is another constituency to be given special treatment? In an ideal world, yes - but in the real world, no. Usually, such children are neglected, and ignored, in various ways.

A large part of the problem is that the teachers misunderstand such gifted children. They think that the gifted child should hand in perfect work, all the time, must be top of the class, in all things - and must show rabid enthusiasm for all things "School". Then, just then, might they accept that a gifted child is, in fact, gifted - and needing special attention.

What the teacher sees instead is something more commonly like: "Oh he/she has such an attitude problem...they don't do their work, they look out of the window, all the time...I can never get his/her attention..." To such a teacher, the gifted child, is, in fact, a lazy or uncooperative child: they don't see the giftedness, they just see the failure to conform to their requirements.

This is the core of the problem and the core of the misunderstanding. The teacher ascribes to the gifted student character flaws that do not exist in the student. The teacher then takes an active dislike to the student, which causes a general, further deterioration in the quality of interaction with the gifted student. What is actually happening is that the gifted student has been placed in an unchallenging class. The student is being bathed daily in what, to them, seems like utter idiocy. The triviality and superficiality of the classroom instruction is such that they endure the profoundest boredom while sitting through class after class of totally empty nonsense. That is the perspective of the gifted child - or one gifted enough to feel this disparity so strongly. A gifted child in a normal classroom may feel rather like an adult going back to primary school: it would be really, really difficult to maintain one's attention for long, in such a situation. In the long term, it would be impossible to do anything but what a gifted child, in a standardized classroom, often does: sits quietly staring out of a window, ignoring the teacher, refusing to do the homework and generally trying to tune out of the dreadful experience.

It is easy for a teacher to fail to understand this. Instead, they look at such a student and get angry at them. So, what, then, does the gifted student think: "Not only is my teacher boring...but angry, too...what a nightmare!" This leads, of course, to a further lack of co-operation from the student - and a further escalation in dislike from the teacher...and so on.

The teacher may be a good teacher to normal children. This does not make them a good teacher to gifted children. The teacher may be an interesting teacher for normal children. This does not make them an interesting teacher for gifted children. The teacher should not take this personally. Yes, they are boring the gifted child - but that doesn't mean that they are intrinsically boring to the average child. So, the teacher should not be affronted (as, surprisingly, many of them are affronted by such a gifted child) - but should understand the situation. There is a mismatch between the gifted child and the standardized classroom. The only remedy is to remove the gifted child from the standardized class and place them in a more challenging one. The simplest way of doing this is to allow the gifted child to skip a few grades - or many - as the case may be. Alternatively, the school must provide individuated instruction - but so few will do that for a small, gifted minority.

Education may be standardized - but people are not. Just as education systems recognize the needs of the mentally challenged (with such initiatives as No Child Left Behind), so too, should they recognize the needs of the mentally gifted. Sadly, they don't. Tellingly, some countries which speak loudly of serving the needs of gifted students, in actual fact provide a completely inadequate response to them. They should know who they are, so I won't name them. I just want to see them start to actually do what they speak of. Then, we might have a world in which gifted children are allowed to thrive.

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eight months, and his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and one month, and 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, Chemistry, Science, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults, and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

The right answer is no answer.

Different cultures vary in how much they stress uniformity of thought. Some cultures, like those in Asia, are rather keen on it.

It begins in the education system. Education, around the world, too often stresses the "right answer". Students are encouraged to yield to the authority of the teacher and the system, in the matter of what is "right" and, in so doing, give up any native drive to be creative. You see, if there is a "right answer", then the answer must already be known. If it is known, it is not new. If it is not new, it is not creative. So, a "right answer" culture, means a no creativity culture.

Singapore is very much a "right answer" culture. I have taught in its schools, and I was very surprised by the instruction I was given by the Head of the English Department that I then worked in (some years ago, now). I was told that I had to write model answers for all the essays that I set the students. I was then to mark their output against my model answer and grade them accordingly. I found this profoundly disturbing - for it meant, very clearly, that there was only one right answer, in that school, in that system. The education system had reduced a quintessentially creative and expressive subject, like English (and the General Paper, which I also taught and for which I was given the same instruction), to a subject in which only one "right answer" was possible. In so doing, the school was enforcing conformity of thought - for anyone who deviated from the "one right answer" - would be marked down. Anyone whose thought conformed to the model answer would be marked up - and rewarded for their conformity of thought. Such a practice can only lead to a student body lacking in creativity and intellectual initiative - and this is precisely what I observed in them. They were unable to think for themselves or to originate ideas. So often when I, against usual practice, set them tasks that actually required them to think I would hear: "But you haven't told us what to write." Sad, isn't it?

I have written a little on this topic before but I felt that it needed to be revisited, in more detail.

An education system may either be open to its students' thoughts and contributions - or it may close down those thoughts and contributions - by insisting that, for all questions, and for all situations, there is only one right answer. Singapore follows such a system in its public education. Many other Asian countries do - and to a lesser extent many countries around the world. Yet, having lived in Asia, I would say that the tendency is vastly stronger here than elsewhere. Wherever this tendency occurs, students are being ill-served by their education. Many years of such a classroom situation can only erase any native creativity there is in the students.

The only right answer is that there is no right answer - except in matters of maths and science - but even then, there is room for a new answer in science and a new method in maths. Education will only ever be educative, when the teachers and the system realize this.

(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, and 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.)