To Engineer is Human: From Life Sciences to IT

Recently, Today published an article entitled "The Life Sciences Conundrum" giving the indication that many life science graduates are having difficulties in finding jobs after they graduate with their degrees. In essence, it is another social engineering experiment that has gone terribly wrong at its infancy. The amusing part is the way how Today spin the problem by absolving the initiators of the biomedical drive that it is Singaporeans who don't want to get a PhD, and that's why they ended up in "washing test tubes".

So, different people, including myself in SG Entrepreneurs gave different perspectives (refer to Tomorrow.SG for different views). So, in my earlier commentary (published under the nick of admin), I have taken the authorities out of the equation for the current predicament. Even if we blame them, they will come back to us and say that, "we told you so to do a PhD". That is their perspective of the problem which will create another problem. In another 10 years, given the amount of A-STAR scholars we have, there will be an inflation of life science PhDs and if the government decides not to fund any more research, these scholars will end up in the same situation with the undergraduates. The wishful thinking on the authorities part is that if there is a critical mass, there is a chance for the industry to boom. Of course, even paved with their "good" intentions and granted that Singapore may eventually reach critical mass, we will still be playing the catching up with the expensive foreigner talent we purchase. I have nothing against the foreign talent policy in principle, but I express reservations about its implementation.

The life sciences drive is predicated on two simple premises: (i) it is a market where a "silicon valley" has yet to be determined and (ii) innovation forms the cornerstone of the next Singapore miracle. However, this market is slightly different from the engineering and IT situation. It requires far more specialized knowledge, and the life sciences industry is very selective on the people they hire in the industry. If you really want to point the finger to the authorities, the best question is to ask yourself, "Are you a scholar or a statistic?" If you are in the first category, you become part of the "inner circle" who will be part of this highly selective industry. However, the authorities refuse to acknowledge that their hype will create the statistics which accumulate to the current debacle.

Even if we have a critical mass of Singaporean scientists, this social engineering experiment may eventually fail. First, the authorities contradicted themselves with their bullish assertion, "we are not here to create Nobel prize winners, but we are here to create jobs." (and I shall not name the person who gave this comment) That's the inconsistency in this kind of argument, because most technology clusters prided themselves with the innovative minds that change the landscape of the technology market. That's the problem with the management engineering approach of the authorities. It is not only human but lack of innovation itself. Using an non-innovative approach to generate innovation is nothing but an oxymoron. Of course, they don't want to be told that famous fable of "the emperor's new clothes". They can get away with the IT and engineering because people graduating from those skills can still apply their skills to move into other areas. In the unfortunate reality of life sciences graduates, there is no other route unless these people take courses in other expertise in university or obtain a locked in effect by working as interns for the life science companies. Of course,the only short cut solution to solve their problem of critical mass is to hire the foreign talent with super high salaries while down-cutting their pays of typical Singaporeans (to three quarters of market rate).

That comes to my other point why most of the blame should be attributed to the people who signed up for the debacle. Unlike their foreign counterparts, Singaporeans are not competitive. If you are in the top universities in the world, the undergraduates are constantly competing for internships in big companies because they want to get hired eventually with their intern experience. A lot of Singaporean undergraduates like to blame foreigners for taking away their places, but they don't realize that they lose out by not competing in the first place. Second, they did not work out their Plan B. I read thousand forum letters about Singaporeans being rejected for research positions because they got second lower or third class honours. The free market argument must apply that only the best will succeed in this industry. Actually, for those who did not get into the research line, they have to find the next best thing to do. There exist cases I have known even in NUS, Singaporean students did not get into the honours program but ended up getting free scholarships in NYU to study life sciences PhD. The real problem is whether they want to take the risk or give those alternatives a try.

As an educator, I often hear my Singaporean undergraduate commenting, "I enter into life sciences because my parents think that it is the best course after law and medicine" or "the government is promoting it", contrary to the foreign undergraduate's view, "I want to be in this industry and I want to get into the best company, GSK or Novartis. This is how I do it: do internships and meet the right people." It is a free market in Singapore and that's the economic reality. There is a nice Chinese saying, "牛不喝水不能按牛頭低" (translation: you cannot force the cow drinking from the river unless her head is pressed down). If most Singaporean undergraduates want to be the cow and accept the drink from the government, they have to pay the price that they don't realize that there is more than just taking life sciences courses. Taking up life sciences does not translate into getting into life sciences industry.

So, even if you blame both sides, the conundrum still exists. We forgot one important group of people who are responsible for the undergraduates: their parents. During Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) press conference this year, one of the commentators made this brilliant suggestion, "We need to start a movement called 'Mothers for Entrepreneurship' so that the kids are not coerced into doing things which they don't want to, but pursue their own interests." The same can be spoken for this debacle. We should perhaps have a movement called "Singaporean mothers against Social Engineering".

Comments

[Michael Choo]

Excellent Post.

Hold a physics degree myself as did not buy into the government will promote life sciences so going to do that mentality. Now have much more wider range of options in life rather than restricted to certain industries.

[BL]

Hi Gecko,

For the edcuational levels in secondary schools and junior colleges, it is more important to teach frameworks of thinking and not too much dogmatic teaching. Let me use an example: in Mathematics, you learn from 1 to 100 in P1, 100 to 1000 in P2, and so on.

That time can be used to teach the same student other tools which can be taught at that level. I find it strange why algebra has to be introduced in P6.

Philosophy should be introduced when they are in secondary school to promote critical thinking. Of course, the establishment is afraid that the social engineering will fail if we start to teach them how to think. The debacle we are facing is the endless control between innovation and social-engieering.

These are my thoughts.

[anom]

actually, "牛不喝水不能按牛頭低" translate to if the cows does not wish to drink, you cannot press their heads down.
This is an entirely different meaning where you cannot make someone do something they do not wish to do.

[gecko]

Hi Bernard,

Thanks for pointing me to this post. You have given detailed reasons to why The-New-Drive-Or-Hype is unlikely to succeed.

Your idea of attributing blame(even if we have to) to the people who signed up for it is based on the premise that such people have not thought carefully or put in enough effort into realizing their degree/career pursuits.

My post sought to draw attention to why the authorities need to relook the thinking, reasoning and decision-making process of young adults who are heading into The-New-Hype.

Social-engineering is an easier practice than 'mind-engineering'. Improving the cognition and metacognition process of young adults in secondary schools and tertiary institutions like the JCs/Polys/ITEs is a far more important objective.

I am an educator just like you, albeit at a different level. What do you think about the placement examination systems such as the 'O' levels and 'A' levels that take away valuable time which young adults at their age could better use to engage more productive projects or achieve learning outcomes.

Apart from international schools or fast-track/through-train programmes, school systems are geared towards placements exams and International Baccalaureates for that matter are no different. The time spent on chasing after good grades in placement exams could be better spent. I do admit that placements exams are a necesssary evil when universities face admission prerogatives. Still, I have raised this issue amongst colleagues and the higher-ups but the reality is placements exams will unlikely see a reduction, much less abolishment.

Perhaps it is too monumentous a task for the authorities to embark upon to rethink education processes in schools that will equip young adults to be better thinkers and decision-makers. This is what is most difficult to achieve but what will greatly improve the educated populace as a whole in mental models. I am keen to hear and learn about your view on this issue.

[Zeus]

I've been telling everybody this.

A BA does not limit your options unless you're seeking a professional field. And even that, it is true only if you're not furthering your studies. As you know, an American Law or Business School welcomes appplicants from all disciplines while for Medical School, there are only a few requisite courses to be Pre-Med.

What about engineering students? Yes, they can be engineers, we can't. But how many wants to be engineers for life? A huge number switch a few years after a good taste in the field, or even right after they graduate.

What forms the majority of the jobs that graduates want? Commercial/Management jobs. So we should all get a Bachelor in Business Management, eh? Again, no. A Business degree is just another general degree and an Arts degree would stand in the same light in the view of employers.

Bottom line: Study whatever you want. Don't be like my Naval officer who said, "Dang, I should have studied Arts, partied all day instead of doing labs and HW endlessly in NUS Science. Now, it's all the same."

To hell with all those that said you must specialise. If we truly believe in Asian "Confucian" values, he advocates that a Gentleman's education should be broad and general in his path to being a sage.

I am double majoring in International Relations and East Asian Studies in University of Toronto. Question: Do I want to be a diplomat for Singapore to China? No.
I am merely following my passion. Vocational preparation is too lowly (think ITE, or more appropriately, our old VIs) to pander to my tastes.

Studying in Trinity College within University of Toronto, I have the supreme pleasure of intellectual peers who share my passion. A milieu naturally unavailable in government-economic directed NUS and NTU. (Notice I didn't mention SMU, but oh well..)

Even right here though, 1/4 of the student populaton are in Life Science! Freaking crazy. A situation worse than Singpaore. Many of them are none the better, believing that's where the money is. Most of them are Asians, almost 70%. Whereas for Commerce, again, 90% are Asians. The Asian mentality for economic gain through education is seriously misguided and a huge misinterpretation of Confucian values. (However, we have to consider that many Asians here in Toronto are immigrants and they don't have an English capacity
to afford the luxury of studying the humanities/ social sciences)

Well, food for thought. Right here, we don't hear of dumb projects and loads of homework to be finished, other for Sci and Engineering students. The government in its omni-present effort to micro-manage education and students' time just can't relent and how can we blame the local graduate for being the well sought after industrious, un-corrupt employee?

Wealth, as we know, belongs in the hands of the few. How can a popular choice lead to wealth (think fad)? How can the route of "jobs" lead to wealth?
I need not work, but I will be richer than 95% of the people who read this.

Enjoying my life now: http://canadian-dream.blogspot.com/