Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Small wonder why NUS alumni not donating back to alma mater
Why am I not surprised that NUS alumni are not donating back to their alma mater?
Before I proceed, let’s have a look at some of the top American universities in terms of alumni contribution. According to the US News and World Report’s ranking on America’s Best Colleges 2007, the top American universities receive pretty strong support from their alumni. As an example, Princeton University boasts a 61% alumni giving rate, while Harvard has 44% alumni giving rate.
These figures almost made my eyes pop out when I first saw them. It simply amazes me that the alumni of these universities are so supportive of their alma mater, especially at Princeton. 6 in 10 of ALL their alumni donated back to their alma mater. It’s astonishing. Certainly, the high alumni giving rate is a clear testimony of how much these people actually cherish their time at the institution.
When I think about NUS, I’m saddened. Deeply saddened, in fact. Now that I am in my final year, I see very clearly why NUS will never be able to hit such high alumni donation rates. This is because in NUS, students have no voice.
Knowing the NUS administration, my previous sentence will have them up in arms. To them, I probably made a statement that’s grossly unfair. Well, it’s not an unfair statement. It is the truth. Students are of the opinion that they have no voice, and that they don’t matter at all. They do not feel that they have a stake in the institution.
Take for example the last two fee increases. It was announced that there would be a fee increase. Students were not consulted before the fee increases. They were ask to give feedback after the decision was made. What does it show? It shows that students don’t matter. To the ordinary student, decisions by NUS are always a done deal. Students have no say in the policy making process. They are consulted after the decision has been made, ostensibly as a form of public relations effort and damage control.
The University administration likes to say that they always consult the Students’ Union before making any decision. I know that they do consult, but the fundamental problem is still there. It’s almost always a case of “please give your comments on this decision that we are going to make”, and not “we have a problem that we would like you to help us find out how best to resolve the issue”. The NUS administration usually already have in mind what they want to do and seeking student opinion is usually more of an after-thought.
Further, it doesn’t help that the NUSSU itself is disconnected from the general student population. If what the administration claims is true that the NUSSU has always been consulted on matters that affect students, how come students know nothing until the decision is officially announced? Is it that difficult for student leaders to inform the students they represent what is going on? If the NUS administration has consulted NUSSU, why has NUSSU not consulted their students? Does NUSSU even know the ground sentiment amongst students?
In many other top ranked universities in the world, students have the ability to influence policy. Students are represented at every level of the University administration, right up to the Board of Trustees. I’ve constantly heard from NUS administrators saying that they are student centric. If indeed NUS is student-centric, then why is student representation absent from the highest decision making body of the institution?
Well, I do know the answer to that question. Policy decisions are not made in one meeting. Sometimes, it can take years to come to a decision. Student leaders have only one year in each term of office, and leadership continuity is not assured. Should there be a change in student leadership, the new guys will not be able to have sufficient background knowledge to continue from where the predecessors left off, since the new guys did not take part in the earlier stages of deliberation.
However, is that reason sufficient enough to shut out the biggest stakeholder of the university? A university without students will cease to exist. Of course, that will not happen in Singapore, but the point here is that students are the most important group of people for any university. It may not be easy to always involve students in decision making at all levels, but should the solution be to completely shut out students, or should be it be to seek alternative compromises?
I had the fortune of being able to attend the centennial dinner organised by NUS last year. The dinner was held at Suntec City, and many alumni attended. What struck me was the age of most of the alumni that were present. It was hard to find young faces. There was a class of graduates who came together to raise funds for the event. If I don’t recall wrongly, the class graduated in the late 70s.
I think the reason why graduates of the 70s and early 80s are more supportive of NUS is simply because they had more say. The Students’ Union was way more powerful than it was today. NUSSU today is more about organising bashes, bazaars and orientation games than student representation. The union of the past staged protests and actually managed to influence policy.
Of course, I am not advocating students stage protests. My key point is that students back then have a say in the running of their institutions (even though sometimes it came about not too diplomatically). Undergraduates are young, full of energy and enthusiastic. It is a result of all these that students tend to be more vocal and expressive of their views, so much so that they will not hesitate to try and fight the establishment.
I do not see anything wrong with that. It is part and parcel of the learning and growing up process of young, idealistic students. The university can either tolerate that and deal with things as they come, which is the harder way, or the easier way would be for the university to choose not to bother about what students think and feel.
NUS has chosen the latter, and the net result is that students end up not feeling for their university anymore. The fire has been doused. If the fire has been snuffed out during their undergraduate days, it is wishful thinking that it will magically rekindle after graduation. In fact, the negative image of NUS in the mind of the students will stick until the day they die.
Can NUS really afford this? Well, it seems that the university isn’t too concerned for now. After all, they managed to land hundreds of millions of dollars worth of donations not too long ago. However, I would like to caution against such short sighted-ness. These one-off donations do not happen all the time. It is more dependable on your own alumni to support the university financially.
To illustrate my point, let’s assume that NUS has Princeton’s alumni giving rate of 61%. Working on the assumption that there are 300,000 current NUS graduates in Singapore, that would yield 183,000 graduates. If each of them pledge $100 of donation annually (which is a paltry sum for a graduate to give on an annual basis), it would yield $18.3 million dollars annually.
Using such conservative figures already yields a sizeable sum. Imagine if the figures were inceased. The potential of the alumni in providing a steady source of finance for a university to develop is enourmous. Unfortunately, NUS has let go of this opportunity by choosing not to make students feel a part of the university. Almost two decades of graduates who do not care about their alma mater have been produced. The way things are going, there will be even more students joining this group of indifferent alumni.
What about me? For now, I don’t think I will be an exception.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 01/11/2006 at 6:24 pm, and is filed under Perspective. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 3 years ago
Hi Patrick,
Thanks for dropping by. I’m quite glad to have graduates from so many years ago sharing their experience. It’s really a testament to what I’ve mentioned. The current NUS president is relatively new, having taken over for around 5 years. However, he should really sit down and think about this issue, especially now that NUS is a corporate entity.
about 3 years ago
Hi Elia,
I do not think that the comparison is unfair. NUS likes to compare itself with top universities around the world. In anycase, I’ve checked and found that even large public institutions in the states receive at least double digits of alumni giving. 1% is really ridiculous.
about 3 years ago
Hi nedstark,
I shall share my experience with trying to stand up to do something. After the election, neutral observers told me they didn’t understand how I lost because I had the better agenda. Sounds familiar? NUS is a microcosm of Singapore society. Even if you want to stand up, people will kill you because you are a threat to their established way of doing things, even though you just want to do things the right way, that is, for the good of the public.
about 3 years ago
By the way, NUSSU Exco, I know you guys are reading my blog.
about 3 years ago
Maybe NUS should try something like what a lot of other US universities does. That is, to allow the donor to specify exactly where they want their money to go to. It could go to the track team, or your specific department, or even to beautifying the area. Sure, it’s going to be a lot more work, but this makes sure that even if a student is not particularly enamored with the school in general, there are other places where his money could be put to use, and this is also part of the plan in making every student feel important and valued.
about 3 years ago
Aaron,
You should do a writeup on alumni/student & administration relationships in foreign universities that NUS/NTU like to compare themselves to. As you dig deeper you may actually find areas where local universities can improve on… or you may also find reasons why NUS/NTU are doing things right in certain aspects.
about 3 years ago
If your donation is large enough, you should specify how it should be use. You don’t want to end up in dispute like the Robertson’s heirs of A & P Supermarket had with Princeton University. They had locked horns for the last 4 years that still awaits trial. His parents gave US$35 million in A & P stocks in 1961 and that gift has grown to US$750 million to train graduates to serve as U.S. diplomats. The family claims that the U has funnelled away millions to support other projects.
about 3 years ago
Dear Akira,
Your suggestion is viable, but my opinion is that the university is organised too bureaucratically to get that effectively done, unless one office, probably the development office oversees everything. General statements about why NUS needs donations are not going to cut ice with many alumni. Appealing to specific groups might help. However, this ties NUS down in terms of flexibility of usage of the donation. It’s still a viable option, nonetheless. Maybe if my department sends me an appeal, I might consider. If NUS alumni office sends me an appeal, it’s going to the trash can.
about 3 years ago
Hi Francis,
I would love to do that. However, it’s going to be a few more years before I step out of Singapore to pursue graduate studies overseas. Until then, I can only rely on people to provide me information.
I did have a little experience when I went for a conference in Dec 2004. The student union leaders I talked to from Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, Swedish and Hong Kong universities all have representations right up to the highest level of the school administration. That’s something I think is really sorely lacking and it clearly reflects the kind of attitude the NUS administration has towards students.
about 3 years ago
Dear Danny,
Wow, I haven’t heard about that. I don’t think any of the current donations to NUS are going any where near that of the U Penn case. However, it would be good for NUS to have a policy statement on this to allay the fears of some donors, just as any respectable company would.
about 3 years ago
on a digressory side-note, my friend once told me, he’s never felt a sense of connection to the school. Neither have I, or any classmates I know. At best, you have Hall-people having a sense of connection to their hall
I guess if we all don’t feel a sense of belonging then there’s a minimal inclination for us to donate to the alumni.
about 3 years ago
Hi nedstark,
true it is sad that no one is standing up, but why dun u consider as well why are nobody standing up?
coz imagine a group of people is sitting on the floor, and listening and abiding by every rule of the authority, then somebody thinks the authority is wrong and stands up to rebuke against the authority. Everyone or at least majority of the group also think that the person is right. BUT! Do they stand up as well? No, in fact the area around the person is suddenly occupy by empty space and people used to sitting next to that person has nonchantly shift to a further position.
Then every one in the group will look on interesting on how the person is going to carry out his one-man show and expect his one-man show to be able to bump the authority. If the person ask for support, then the group around him will probably mummer a bit about how he is right PROVIDED that there is no way that the authority can spot the individual making the mummering.
Then the authority can make full use of the situation to point out that the person is a sore thumb and he is not merging with the group and has low EQ or something like the person is the one with the fault.
It is not really that nobody will stand up, it is more of nobody will dare to support. sometimes some students will ask us to sign an online petition for some causes, and always majority of the students who sign will put a fake name and a fake matric number. They sign for the sake that they can tell their friends that “Oh yeah, I’ve signed, too bad it didn’t work out”. Honestly which joker will take seriously a petition (which does not weight very much in Singapore anyway) that has 70% of names like Ihatethis, Idunsupportthis, Iamsohandsome, Iamasuperhero type of nicks.
I agree totally with Mr LKY here, Singaporeans are really holding very tightly to their asian values. We are too afraid to stand out, we are afraid of changes also. We are always hoping that the government will change their ways but if someone says, why not change the government, everyone is too frightened to even think about that. So there is no surprise why PAP always wins.
about 3 years ago
Miko, Aaron, et al,
What you describe is apathy/conservatism amongst the student body. So perhaps it may not be wholly the fault of the administration that there is less student voice in various affairs. In that sense, it’s a circular situation because the majority – students, professors, admin, etc. – generally do not want to evolve from the status quo. Or do not care enough to diverge from that.
Taking that to the next level… a university is generally supposed to be a microcosm of the more learned and intelligent members of a society, which presumably means that on average students & teachers there should be more capable of handling polar or radical views rather than just staying in a narrow pre-defined middle path.
Then perhaps beyond the immediate discussion of why NUS has problems getting alumni to support its fundraising endeavors, this topic backtracks to the larger topic that was previously discussed on this site on whether NUS is a world class university. Perhaps on certain defineable metrics it is amongst the top… but seems even clearer now that given the limit or lack of freethinking and the acceptance of differing views, that to use the phrase ‘world class university’ is completely inappropriate.
about 3 years ago
http://blog.yclim.net/?p=151
about 3 years ago
Aaron,
1. THE VSU legislation was laid down by the Howard government, not decided by the Unis themselves.
2. Erm, Australian National Uni (ANU) IS ranked higher than NUS, plus they have just accepted VSU. Same thing goes to Uni of Melb that was ranked higher than NUS last year (THES rankings).
Did more than 50% of students not join the unions? Yes they do. But has this move crushed any student unions in Australia? NO! (well, the truth is alot of these student unions do use funds to organise parties/bashes/BBQs) In fact, this was a good wake-up call to them, because it has made them more accountable to their members, and has to work their way to attract students and convince them that the Union is there for them, not just on the social front.
Afterall, it makes no sense to pay student union fees if they don’t do much! But at the end of the day, alot of students would support VSU (be it in Sg or Oz), but it’s the government that lays down the law…
about 3 years ago
I’m not saying let’s scrap NUSSU (or the NTU counterparts). I’m saying, why don’t you start a petition (where most rational undergrads will be on your side) agreeing to scrap Compulsory Student Unionism (reason being they (1) only do not neglect the social side of uni life, and (2) do not speak up for the average undergrad and hence, do not want to waste their dollars on a dysfunctional student union).
Next, blow this up on the national front via the opposition or the news, and let them thrash it out in parliament.
Us Sgporeans who have our minds wired to the wallet/bank-account would sway to your side. Should your attempt fail, the Student Unions would still get their wakeup call.
about 3 years ago
Dear Alvin,
I am well aware that Union membership, despite being voluntary, is still very strong overseas. I am all for the idea, but I don’t think it will happen for a few reasons.
Firstly, the students’ union itself will oppose (well, just the people in office, not the entire body of students). By making union membership voluntary, you are asking them to take a gamble on their current assured annual operating budget of S$540,000. Imagine if it becomes only $100,000 after making union membership voluntary.
Secondly, the NUS administration will not allow it. The reason is simple. If the students’ union cannot claim that it represents all students, then when policies are handed down, they cannot use their usual excuse of having consulted students through the students’ union. As much as in practice the current students’ union is out of touch with the general student population, in theory, since it is compulsory that all students are union members, the admin can point to that and say that by consulting NUSSU, it’s as good as consulting all students.
Ultimately, I still do hope that union membership becomes voluntary. If NUSSU membership is voluntary and yet most students still choose to be a member and pay membership dues, it is a vote of confidence for the union, not to mention that it will improve the standard of union leadership. At least it will weed out those who say that they run for office for the welfare of students, but in their hearts, they only have the intention to polish their CV.
about 3 years ago
A charity should keep admin and fund-raising expenses to less than 25% of its budget. The American Red Cross spends less than 9% of its budget on such expenses. Children’s Museum of Pittburghs spends 16% while Food Bank of Corpus Christi, Texas uses only 2%. Both are 4 stars rated charities. The Foundation for New Era Philanthropy went bankrupt in 1995 with more than US$354 million from donors. Harvard U achieved 16% p.a. return of investment of US$27 billion. NKF got only 3.8% p.a. on investment. SATA got 12% return. GIC got 9.5% p.a. return for last 25 years due to IPO of SIA, Singtel and others. Temasek got 1% return p.a. for the last 5 years excluding Shin Corp, Global Crossing, and other losses.So if they are not careful with investment, they can go belly up as 85% of actively managed funds never beat the benchmark return. Sales charges of 5% and annual management fee of 5%, hidden charges due to high trading turnover of 120% and spread of 5% between offer and bid pricing, stale pricing, after hours trading and performance fees will eat into returns unless the fund managers can achieve at least 15% or more per year.
about 3 years ago
I certainly don’t how how much NUS investments are generating. I believe NUS’s foray into investments is pretty new. I do hope that they can generate enough returns to fund projects, or at least stave off fee increases for some years.
about 3 years ago
I think there are many other reasons why NUS will never be No#1
Many many many many reasons….
Its similar to why SPH will lose its grip on the Media.
about 3 years ago
For direct mailing, it is usual to get from 0.5% to 2% response rate depending on the quality of the name list. As to Harvard and Princeton getting 60% and 40% of alumni donors, it took time to get there. So it may take NUS 20 years or more to do so.
In the U.S. the new graduates are not asked for donations until after 5 years later as they have student loans to pay. With increasing cost of education and rising interest rates and credit card debts, it may take them 20 to 30 years to pay back all.
about 3 years ago
Well Danny, I’m aware that donations won’t start coming in after the graduate is comfortable enough with his personal finances.
Even if I discount graduates who graduated in the last 5 years, how about those from the period 1990-2000? If 10-20% of these graduates made some form of donation, I’m sure the figure wouldn’t be just 1 percent.
Ultimately, my main point is that NUS cannot and must not seperate student affairs, alumni affairs and donation affairs. Whether one’s alumni is willing to financially support is largely dependent on their image of the institution when they are undergraduates. If NUS wishes to dig in for the long haul, it needs to start getting the relevant offices to start working together because it’s all inter-related.
about 3 years ago
recently i was helping out at a class of 81 reunion dinner and there was a fund raising auction for the endowment fund… at first it seemed almost as if nobody would bid but the final painting went for 17k. i dont think “young faces” would have afford 17k.
on another matter, during homecoming, there was the setting up of some kind of alumni board and that had a good span of people who ranged from class of 2000+ to class of 1970+
they are trying to involve everybody. give them some credit please.
BUT these are the efforts of the alumni office folks which is totally different from the NUSSU stuff that you are talking about. its sad that they don’t seem to see correlation between the two.
personally i was quite disgusted that immediately after the 3rd year, they sent me the form asking me to donate. they dont even check that i’ve decided to continue on to my 4th year. and i dont see how they expect people to donate before they even had time to get a job.
perhaps the alumni relation building comes from other kinds of ‘perks’ that they try to create through the alumni card, (not NUSS mind you), which offer free facilities for alumni use and overseas chapters, etc. *shrugs*
despite all this, i often wonder if i myself would donate after i graduate. probably not for the first 5 years after graduation. its sad
about 3 years ago
Hi monkey,
I agree that not every fresh graduate will be able to afford 17k. However, I’m sure there are many graduates who graduated in the last 10 years who are successful enough to donate that kind of money. Ten years of graduates work out to about 40,000 – 50,000 people. I don’t think it’s hard to find 10-20 of them who can afford that 17k painting. The point is, why are they not coming forward?
I think you misunderstand what I am trying to say. I never did diss the efforts of the alumni office. I know they work hard, and based on my personal interaction, the OAR director is very sincere about reaching out to alumni.
My point is that no matter how hard the alumni office tries, if change does not come from within, i.e. before the students graduate, future batches of alumni are going to be indifferent about donating back to NUS. There ought to be tripartite co-operation between the alumni office, the development office and the student affairs office.
And, don’t worry, you’re not alone in wonder whether you will donate in the first 5 years after you graduate.
about 3 years ago
Hi Aaron,
This is a very well written entry. I too share the same sentiment, having graduated from NUS last year. The university has focused too much on the hardware (branding, buildings, rankings, etc) and lost out on its student relationship aspect. Making students lose interest and faith in the university. And it is amazing that they are now asking why such a small percentage of alumni donate.
Besides not consulting the student body before making drastic changes. Academically, I also find the staff quality to be wanting. We have come upon lecturers and tutors who publicly announce to the students they will not entertain email or visits by students if they have any problems or queries (due to their busy schedule). So we only see them once a week for lessons and that is all. Don’t think the university contributed much to our learning this way.
about 3 years ago
Hi Vincent,
You are right that our development as a world class university has been lop-sided. We are ranked well internationally, collaborated with many other world class universities to offer programmes, as well as having a vibrant exchange programme. However, despite all these, my observation is that students are not happy. It seems that there is a chasm between what students want and what the NUS administration think student wants. This is not healthy in the long run.
As for staff quality, I think that it’s a general problem with big universities. Having said that, there’s no excuse for staff not to entertain students. After all, without students, the staff would be out of a job!
about 3 years ago
It’s just a reflection of the larger situation going on in Singapore. Apathy arises because people who are not given a voice simply give up after awhile.
And I was just reflecting on those exact comments about NUSSU the other day, when I was talking to a friend. It was pertaining to the unfair allocation of CCA points to the arts groups – max available is 13 per member per year (and the administrators managed to increase this to 26 for committee members within the last two years), no matter how many projects and major productions are done, which is probably about how much a hall resident gets for a single small-scale hall production. How are we supposed to compete for student housing? And can you believe that OSA cites NUSSU disapproval as the reason for not increasing the CCA allocation to musical and arts groups not under their subclub? They say that the arts groups can’t have more CCA points because they don’t organise bazaars. So I was ranting about this to a friend, and I believe the exact question was…what does NUSSU do? And then I was stumped. We both were.
about 3 years ago
Dear Woc,
To be fair to OSA, the points system in place now is indeed a NUSSU creation (if I don’t remember the history of it wrongly), and that any increase in allocation is indeed a NUSSU perogative.
To be fair to NUSSU as well, point allocation is something that no one will be able to agree on. Different people will have different demands, and NUSSU has not been able to come up with a solution that’s perfect. While that is no justification for an imperfect system, the other alternatives for campus housing are ballot, or first-come-first-served, of which neither are better solutions.
The key problem is actually not the point allocation system, but the lack of housing. Hopefully, the new residential colleges that are upcoming at the Warren Campus will be able to provide the necessary supply.
about 3 years ago
I fully understand why many NUS alumni refuse to donate to NUS.
The NUS administration had mishandled relationship with some of the alumni. For example, in 1998, when NUS decided to implement the new CAP (cumulative average point) system, they were not transparent in their honours classification to the 2002 graduates. The older honours classification for graduates before 2001 was based on the UK system, which placed weightage of 10%, 20%, 30% and 40% for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th year of the bachelor degree respectively, unlike the newer CAP honours classification which placed equal weightage (roughly 25% for each of the 4 years) for every modules inclusive of year 1 to year 4. It means that every year in the 3 to 4 years degree was as important. This CAP honours classification was never revealed to the 2002 graduates until they received their final honours classification transcript. Obviously, many were unhappy as they were unaware of the new CAP honours classification until upon graduation. If this classification information was made known for the first year students in 1998/1999/2000/2001, they can placed equal emphasis throughout their University education, instead of concentrating on ECAs and hall activities during their 1st and 2nd years. Some of the graduates at that time who aced in the 3rd and 4th years of their degree were only awarded 2nd lower and 3rd class honours under the new CAP classification, unlike their pre 2001 graduates who, with similar grades, were easily awarded 1st and 2nd upper class honours. (Many graduates at that time were very familiar with the older UK honours classification and knew that they have to worked extremely hard in 3rd and 4th year and chose to be more active in school activities in 1st and 2nd year, and were devastated and extremely unhappy when they received their transcript, feeling that they had been “cheated†by the NUS administration)
Many of the graduates at that time still resent the NUS administration in their lack of transparency and insensitivity as this greatly affected their job opportunity, especially when honours classification is one of the most important factors in securing a well-paid job. Many even regretted in their choice to study in NUS and felt they would be better off if they had chosen NTU instead. This is a very important reason why a certain portion of NUS alumni refused to donate to NUS. Of course, other minor reasons for the unhappiness of graduates also involved tuition fee hike, implementation of paid parking in NUS, heavy subsidized by the government on foreign students at the expense of local students etc.
The NUS administration should reflect on their mismanagement of relationship with the students and their insensitivity to those NUS alumni before they expected strong support from them.
about 3 years ago
Why Just 1% of Alumni Donate to NUS
I have totally given up on the Straits Times. I have long known that the Straits Times has too many ties with the Singapore Government (read: PAP) to give Singaporeans an unbiased report of the news in Singapore and all over the world. But recent articles that have come to my attention in the newspaper have just led me to believe that the journalists for the Straits Times don’t really know how to write very well. I shall talk about that at another time though.
On the front page of today’s Straits Times, it is reported that ‘Just 1% of alumni donate to NUS’, and that
‘Only 1,452 alumni, or one in 100 graduates, responded to the university’s first call for donations last year.’
This does not surprise me at all. When I was an undergraduate in NUS, I did not feel special, and I definitely did not feel that NUS had given me a competitive edge over anyone else. NUS did not make much of a provision for me because I was a Singaporean. I got to pay only $5K+/year in school fees, a mere 1K less than foreigners, and this was because of the MOE subsidy which was also extended to foreigners (hence the relatively cheap school fees for them). The only ‘catch’ for foreigners accepting this aid from MOE was that they had to work in Singapore for a stipulated period of time after they had graduated. However, they were not bonded to a specific company. Apparently (from what my foreigner friends told me) all they had to do was work in Singapore (and pay income tax to the Singapore governement I guess).
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those who didn’t make it to go overseas to study because of my grades, or because of financial problems, who is just lashing out at the Singapore government because I feel it is not doing enough for the average Singaporean. I did get a PSC scholarship to study my subject choice (Biology and Mathematics) in either a US or UK university (my choice), but I had to turn that down because of my parents. Not going to discuss that here.
So basically what I felt of NUS at that time was that Singaporeans were not really given an advantage by studying in their own country, while NUS was really trying to attract foreigners to study there. Nothing much to say about that, because that is basically what the Singapore government is trying to do – attract foreign talent. But what this meant to me was that I didn’t feel much for NUS. NUS didn’t make me feel important. It was just a place for me to get my degree. I didn’t bond with NUS, didn’t feel much about the school name. And now that I’ve graduated, I don’t really feel proud of saying I’m an NUS grad the way people would happily announce they are Harvard graduates. Nothing to do with the standard of education in NUS here, it’s just that I’ve never really felt like part of the NUS community.
There was also this point that in USA/UK Universities, most people get their Honours degree in 3 years, and their Masters in their 4th year. This is almost impossible to do in NUS. NUS degrees are very structured. To graduate with Honours, some enormous number of modules have to be completed within 4 years. Yes, 4. This means that if you wanted to do something bizarre like major in Maths and Biology, you’d have to take at least 6 modules/semester, while doing 7-8 modules in some semesters. There used to be a module cap of 5 modules/semester (not sure if there still is), and you were only allowed to do 6 if you had a CAP of 3.8/5.0 or more, which I agree should probably the case if you wanted to take 6 modules. If you wanted to take 7 or more modules you had to specially apply to do so. With the workload required to graduate with a single major (I’m talking about majors here because usually faculties with no majors have fixed timetables across the 4 years needed to graduate, e.g. law and engineering, and you can’t really choose to graduate in 3 years or less) with honours, you’d not only have to have advanced placement for some of the first year modules (if not all 4-5 of them) to be able to complete these your course with honours in 3 years or less, you’d have to take 6 or more modules/semester to accomplish this. So basically, most people who want to graduate with honours have to stay in NUS for 4 years, while as an exchange student from UK put it ‘Everyone in my university at home gets honours after 3 years, unless they were constantly flunking their modules throughout their stay in the university.’
I shall take this paragraph to laud my friend, Jialu, who actually managed to graduate from NUS Science faculty in 3 years, with double honours in Chemistry and Computing. She is truly amazing, and she could only get advanced placement for the Chemistry modules. She took 8-9 modules per semester, and did 2 honours year projects in her 3rd year. Jialu, I shall always be in awe of you =P.
But for the rest of the not-so-elite NUS students, honours in 3 years is really very hard to obtain. In fact, in my year, because the cutoff for entry into the Honours year was a CAP of 3.8 (for Science faculty that is), more than 1/2 of my Microbiology class didn’t qualify for Honours (this CAP has been lowered to 3.5). Which means (to me at least) that just by getting Honours, I’d have graduated in the top 1/2 of my class. Sadly, this is not reflected in the government payscale, which views degrees held by graduates from overseas Universities (ok at least the ‘good’ ones) in the same light as degrees held by graduates from NUS. This payscale doesn’t take into account that overseas, practically everyone graduates with Honours (at least in my field), while in NUS, only the top 1/2 do. At the point of time of my graduation, I roughly estimated that an overseas student graduating with a 2nd Upper would be about the same as an NUS student graduating with a 2nd lower. How good this estimate is, I really can’t say. But my point of view was that since almost everyone there will get an honours degree, the top 50 percentile would be getting a 2nd Upper or better, but since only about 50% of NUS students qualify for Honours, and the cummulative CAP of 3.8 for entrance into the Honours year practically ensures that noone doing honours gets less than a 2nd lower, the 2nd Upper from overseas universities is roughly equivalent to those getting 2nd lower from NUS.
When I was applying for University in JC, the tuition fees for Universities in the USA were very different for International and Local students. I ran a check for the fees for the University of Chicago and the University of Michigan, and as Gideon had pointed out to me recently, they are now the same for both International and Local (US) students. Either this or I am really incapabale of finding information using the internet now. However, I remember being rather unhappy that Singapore didn’t really ‘protect’ it’s locals by offering (comparitively) lower fees to Singapore students. In my honours year, I was relatively interested in studying post-grad medicine, thanks to my fellow Microbiology honours year student, Huiwen, so I went to look up on the costs. In Australia, the fees for International students were once again much higher than that for locals (have no idea if this is still the case). Hence, the idea that NUS doesn’t really cater to Singaporeans (other than actually being in Singapore itself) crossed my mind.
Thus, people who get to study overseas, whether on scholarships or because their parents can afford it, are generally able to come back and start work 1 year earlier than their Singaporean counterparts who choose to do their Honours year. So Singaporeans getting their degrees from NUS have to
1. Study that extra year just to get the same pay as those who got to study overseas
2. Work their ass off in NUS for 3 years to get the same pay at the same time as those who studied overseas
3. Study that extra year, get the same percentile (top 50) as those who studied overseas, and get paid less
4. Not study their honours year and get paid less than both those who studied overseas and those who chose to do their honours year in NUS.
All not very attractive options, I must say.
The Straits Times also makes a very bizarre comparison in it’s article.
‘The 1per cent response rate pales in comparison to the relative generosity of American university alumni – four in 10 graduates from private universities such as Harvard and Yale open their chequebooks.’
Ok yes this 1% pales in comparison. So how about the public/government universities in USA? How much do THEIR alumni contribute? The Straits Times gives no statistics on this. o.O? NUS is not a private university. Why should this make a difference, you may ask. Well, for starters, the quote there names Harvard and Yale, which are very high ranked universities not only in the USA, but around the globe. University education in the USA isn’t as cheap as that in Singapore, and private university education even more so. I would say that if during my stay in NUS, I entered through scholarly merit, and I got 5 digits of financial aid in US dollars per year to make it through my university education, I would probably feel some indebted to the school in some way or another, and would try to contribute back to my alumni. If I was rich and hence able to pay for my 5 digit school fees/year and enter a private university in the US, I might also be inclined to donate to my alumni so that more needy students could benefit from this. If I graduated from Harvard or Yale, and just by writing that name on my resume people would actually take notice, I might (might being the keyword here) feel obliged to donate some money to my university. But NUS offered no such thing to me. In fact, it appears that I should donate to MOE instead because of the tution grant >.
about 3 years ago
In order to look further into the government subsidies on foreign students, they are paid around
$6720 per year (international undergraduate students price)
Total 4 years: $6720 x 4 = $26,880
Scholarship allowance: $6000 per year ($24,000 for 4 years)
Hostel fee: $140 per month
Total for 4 years (40 months after minus off the 2 months holiday each year): $140 x 40 = $5,600
To and Fro Air ticket: $2000
Total expenses paid on a foreign students for 4 years = $26,880 + $24,000 + $5,600 + $2,000 = $58,480
Expenses paid for foreign postgraduate research foreign students (80% of postgraduate research are foreigner):
Tuition Fee for 2 years: $10,000 ($5000 per year)
1 month allowance: $1500
Total 2 years allowance: $1500 x 24 = $36,000
Total fee: $36,000+ $10,000 = $46,000
Tuition fees of local students: $6110 ($24,440 for 4 years)
Repayment over 12 years with interest of 5.5% = $40,568 with ($16,128 interest)
Monthly installment = $282
This means that for every foreign students, 2.4 Singaporean students are paying for their scholarship. That’s why the government and NUS and NTU need to rise funds and reduce subsidises for Singaporean students. And every Singaporean students are stuck with $40,568 debt to be repaid over 12 years upon graduation.
There are a total of 25% foreign students in NUS/NTU and roughly around 10% (of whole University) are foreign scholars. Therefore, 24% of Singaporean students are paying for the foreigner undergraduate fees and total 70% of Singaporean students are paying for foreigner postgraduate and foreign undergraduate students.
Hence, only 30% of Singapore students and government subsidises generate profit to pay for professors, staffs, facilities, buildings and equipments
That’s the reason why our government and NUS need more money from the alumni (with a big proportion to subsidise those foreign students)
about 3 years ago
Hi Shelly,
Thanks for taking the time to write such a nice and long comment.
With regards to the Straits Times, no comments. From the perspective of a journalism student, all the more I wish not to comment. I never understood how they can be so happy about being ranked number 1 in Singapore where there’s no competition. If there were competition from a truly independent press, the ST will only be read by those who need newspapers to wrap their fish or vegetables. :p
With regards to the donation rates of public universities in NUS, typically range from 10% to 20%, which is at least 10 – 20 times better than NUS. And many of these public universities rank lower than NUS, according to THES.
And, you are yet another living proof how NUS is more like a factory than a home. I don’t know when the NUS administration will come round to the fact that is is happening, and has happened for years. There’s a theory that NUS will never care because the top management probably won’t stay long enough to reap the effect. If that theory is true, then perhaps nothing will ever happen.
about 3 years ago
Hi Sharon,
My spam catcher accidentally caught your comment as spam. I’m so sorry about that. I’ve given it a good lesson. :p
Thanks for breaking down the figures. I’m not sure if it accurate reflects the true picture, though, although I don’t doubt that some of our taxpayer’s money is used to subsidise foreigners. I suppose that it is somewhat mitigated by bonding these foreign students for a few years to work in Singapore and get them to pay tax. However, that raises another problem in itself, that is, foreign students are taking away jobs from Singaporean students.
This is an issue that has multiple dimensions, and I don’t have an answer to it. I do think that foreign students are an important component of any university, especially with regards to graduate students. Most universities around the world provide a large amount of funding/subsidy to foreign graduate students. When it comes to undergraduate students, it’s a different ball game. Foreign undergradate students pay substansially higher fees in some countries, such as Australia and USA. Maybe indeed we are too generous in subsidising foreign undergraduates.
However, we must also bear in mind that with a 4 million pool of people, we will run short of talents for our economy. I suppose that’s why we have to support foreign students in the hope that they eventually stay and contribute. I think the key issue is how much to subsidise, and not to shut out foreign students altogether.
about 3 years ago
Sharon’s calculations are very good, and I am very surprised at the fact that “This means that for every foreign students, 2.4 Singaporean students are paying for their scholarship.”
I am not sure about this, but perhaps one of the mindset is that since the graduates of NUS pay income tax, they might think that they are indirectly donating to NUS as well, and hence do not donate further directly to NUS,
The “S” in NUS seems to imply that NUS is linked to the government of Singapore financially.
about 3 years ago
NUS was a government institution. The name national university attests to that. Now that NUS has been corporatised, should it still carry this name? To allow a corporate entity to carry the title of National University doesn’t sound right to me.
about 3 years ago
Some minor correction
In order to look further into the government subsidies on foreign students, they are paid around
I believed I am not detail enough in the calculation. I have ignored the $15,700 per year government grant for all the foreign students.
The total fees are: $21,810 ($15,700 as tuition grant and $6720 as tuition fee)
Tuition Fee/Tuition Grant for Academic Year 2006-07 for foreigner
S$22,420 (Total Tuition fee)
S$15,700 (Govt grant)
S$6,720 (tuition fee of foreigner)
Those foreign students (not under scholarship) who are paying $6720 per year themselves are bonded to work in Singapore for 3 years.
As for Foreign scholars, they are 100% sponsored with the cost breakdown as below. They only have to be bonded in Singapore for 6 years.
$6720 per year (international undergraduate students price after government tuition grant)
Total 4 years: $6720 x 4 = $26,880
Scholarship allowance: $6000 per year ($24,000 for 4 years)
Hostel fee: $140 per month
Total for 4 years (40 months after minus off the 2 months holiday each year): $140 x 40 = $5,600
To and Fro Air ticket: $2000
Total expenses (ignore government tuition grant) paid on a foreign students for 4 years = $26,880 + $24,000 + $5,600 + $2,000 = $58,480
$22,420 per year (international undergraduate students price after government tuition grant)
Total 4 years: $22,420 x 4 = $89,680 (include government grant)
Total expenses (inclusive of tuition grant) paid on a foreign students for 4 years = $89,680 + $24,000 + $5,600 + $2,000 = $121,280
Expenses paid for foreign postgraduate research foreign students (80% of postgraduate research are foreigner):
Tuition Fee for 2 years: $9,580 ($4790 per year)
1 month allowance: $1500
Total 2 years allowance: $1500 x 24 = $36,000
Total fee: $36,000+ $9,580 = $45,580
In 2005, there are 1964 research students (80% are foreigner: 1571. Total amount spent on Postgrad students: $71.61 million)
Total no of undergrad in NTU: 16,837 (2005 statistic, based on NTU annual report)
Postgrad: 7421
Total no of students (under and postgrad) = 25,258
Assume 15% of undergrad are foreign scholars: 2525
Total number of foreign scholars (undergrad and postgrad) = 2525 + 1571 = 4,096
Total amount spent on them (undergrad and postgrad foreign students): ($121,280 x 2525) + (1571 x $45,580) = $306.232m + $71.61m = $377.842million
Tuition fees of local students: $6110 ($24,440 for 4 years)
Repayment over 12 years with interest of 5.5% = $40,568 with ($16,128 interest)
Monthly installment = $282
This means that ignoring government tuition grant, for every foreign students, 2.4 Singaporean students are paying for their scholarship.
Inclusive of government tuition grant (of $15,700 per year), for every foreign students, 5 Singaporean students are paying for their scholarship
That’s why the government and NUS and NTU need to raise funds and reduce subsidise for Singaporean students. And every Singaporean students are stuck with $40,568 debt to be repaid over 12 years upon graduation.
(These are my estimation of the % of foreign scholars in NUS/NTU. They are not open about this statistic and there is no way to find out by my own)
There are a total of 25% foreign students in NUS/NTU and roughly around 15% (of whole University) are foreign scholars. Therefore, 25% of Singaporean students are paying for the foreigner undergraduate fees and total 44% of Singaporean students are paying for foreigner postgraduate and foreign undergraduate students.
Hence, only 56% of Singapore students and government subsidises generate profit to pay for professors, staffs, facilities, buildings and equipments
That’s the reason why our government and NUS need more money from the alumni (with a big proportion to subsidize those foreign students)
If we include the government tuition grant for the foreign scholar, it will be 75% of Local Singapore University Students paying for the foreign undergraduate scholars and 92.5% of local Singapore undergraduate University Students paying for both foreign undergraduate and postgrad scholars.
However, some of them are very smart, their guarantor are each other family. Meaning, Friend A family is the guarantor of friend B and vice versa. Usually, both of them will ‘break’ the bond together by going back to their home country or pursuing further postgraduate study in US, UK or Australia.
In another way, they can set up a “dummy†company, registering themselves as boss, and went back to their home country to work or pursue postgraduate in another country. Or simply, just ‘disappear’ without informing MOE at all.
Will they just break the bond and run off? After all, China and India are so big. If they decided to flee Singapore after breaking the bond, the money invested on them will be all wasted.. it will be very hard for anyone to search for them.
The most ironical thing is that our government don’t even know that they have disappeared, thinking that they are still working in Singapore with their ‘ dummy company’
My calculation is highly accurate as the scholarship details are derived from the foreign scholars themselves. And the incidents of them ‘fleeing’ are real cases. However, the real statistic can only be provided by MOE (must minus off the ‘dummy company strategy’ which MOE also can’t track).
The worst thing is that some of these foreign talent students are not that smart. But I must admit a large portion of them are very smart, scoring 1st class and 2nd class upper. Some of them did not even get honours degree and many managed only 3rd class honours. I got this statistic from the 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 NUS convocation handbook where the honours classification are stated clearly. We must bear in mind that all the 99% of the PRC and Indian students are under the scholarship. Mostly Malaysian are paying themselves.
The foreigner scholarship requirement must be above CAP of 3.5 (average of B). But a significant number failed to achieved that, yet their scholarship still continued. This is damn unfair to Singaporean students with a huge majority who can scored at least 2nd class lower, but must still every 5 local students pay for a foreign ‘talent’ student who didn’t meet the mark. Of course, there are a few scholars who got their scholarship terminated. But they are those who failed 3 to 4 subjects each semester and have to take 5 years to complete the bachelor degree.
about 3 years ago
“However, some of them are very smart, their guarantor are each other family. Meaning, Friend A family is the guarantor of friend B and vice versa. Usually, both of them will ‘break’ the bond together by going back to their home country or pursuing further postgraduate study in US, UK or Australia.In another way, they can set up a “dummy†company, registering themselves as boss, and went back to their home country to work or pursue postgraduate in another country. Or simply, just ‘disappear’ without informing MOE at all.
Will they just break the bond and run off? After all, China and India are so big. If they decided to flee Singapore after breaking the bond, the money invested on them will be all wasted.. it will be very hard for anyone to search for them.”
While we see a reduction in scholarships offered to local students because of bond breaking, we don’t see a similar reduction in scholarships offered to foreign students. Ironic.
about 3 years ago
But I must admit a large portion of them are very smart, scoring 1st class and 2nd class upper
Yeah. They are smart, and hardworking too. I have witnessed their genius before. Considering that the “best of the best” from China and India DO NOT come to Singapore, I can only wonder how smart the real smarties from China and India are.
However, they are also mostly “over-aged”, meaning that they have more experience and are more mature than Singaporeans, and this may explain a portion of their “smartness”.
But as Sharon mentioned, their smartness is to the DISADVANTAGE TO SINGAPORE, since the same smartness they have is used to do the “Break Bond Trick” that will allow them to break bonds like there is no tomorrow.
I mean, even in Chemistry, breaking bonds require some energy input, man. These people break more bonds than we eat rice.
about 3 years ago
You’re funny, Yoyobarn. Linking the breaking bonds part to Chemistry is something that didn’t cross my mind. Haha…
I think this is a serious problem for Singapore. Our taxpayer’s money is being used to educate a person of another nationality who then breaks the bond. It’s practically like stealing from us. While we recognise this, the next question is, how do we prevent this?
I just had an idea that a little crazy, but might work. We’ll withhold their degree scroll until they complete their bond. When these foreign students look for a job in Singapore, they can indicate they have a degree and the employer can verify with the institution to see if that person indeed has a degree and then pay the foreign student accordingly. Only when the 6 years are up then the degree scroll is given. I don’t think foreign student will dare run away without getting their degree scroll.
about 3 years ago
That sounds like a good idea.
I read in the “Air-conditioned Nation” by Cherian George that one day, Singapore may be a country without Singaporeans.
As paradoxical as it sounds, it may become true, if Singaporeans continue migrating overseas, and foreign talent migrate to Singapore.
about 3 years ago
Well, Singapore will never be a country without Singaporeans. The poor will never have a chance to leave. They’ll just continue to suffer. I don’t know, but its not wise to breed too much underground discontent. Iron-fisted governments like the PRC government still have people who are organising uprisings against the government. It says alot about what can happen when people are pushed to the brink.
about 3 years ago
I’m not sure if I would agree with your analysis with regards to why alumni of top Unis give back so frequently. I don’t think the issue is as simple as having a voice in the administration.
Based on personal experience, I don’t think the students have that much of a voice in the USA or the UK for that matter. Perhaps you want to investigate this matter more deeply by interviewing alumns of top foreign Unis for their views.
about 3 years ago
Hi guitar,
Well, I see that there isn’t much different between NUS today and NUS 30 years ago, except that it has grown much bigger, and students have steadily lost their ability to influence school decisions, and consequently leading to them feeling that they are no longer a stakeholder. The crux of the matter is that the administration has not appeared to be meaningfully canvassing the views and support of students for their policies. I mean, who would love an iron-fisted style of governance?
about 3 years ago
Hi Aaron, I am a little worried for you as you mentioned that you are a final year undergraduate in NUS.
Beware of people who may “sabo” you and turn you in to the authorities for criticising NUS.
But then again, final year means you are getting out very soon right? (eg. in 1 month??) Once you are out, I guess you could criticise NUS for all it is worth, ie. nothing.
about 3 years ago
Hi Yoyobarn,
I assure you, the NUS administration knows who I am, and knows the existence of my blog. I don’t see why should anyone do something to me for crticising NUS. In the words of the KTM, there’s a difference between being offensive and being not afraid to offend. I do not write things for the sake of offending. I believe that the NUS administration is enlightened enough to understand this. I am merely highlighting something that is happening at the ground level, which is something that they do not see, especially with a weak students’ union that has little support from the students, and a huge bureaucratic structure that alienates the top decision makers from the students because there are too many middle layers.
about 3 years ago
Yes, I’ve been here (NUS) 8 years now (doing grad school). Never once felt that strong sense of belonging to NUS. I’ve never really thought much about it but perhaps it’s a combination of factors.
I’m one of those who were ‘hoodwinked’ in the conversion to a modular system. That slayed many of my friends. Furthermore, they changed the CAP from 4 to 5 midway through our studies and as a result, there were more third class honours and pass/pass with merits than you could shake a stick at. Given the poor job market in 2002 then is it a wonder why many of my batch are sore about it? Yes, arguements of ‘nobody owes you a living’ and the likes may be trotted out but face it, it’s a real world. People do get pissed off. And if you want their money next time, try not to piss them off too badly.
I remember picking up my Convocation gown and receving a nicely sealed envelope that was addressed to my parents asking for them to donate the $230 or so for the gown deposit. All before I even found a job.
about 3 years ago
Shelly wrote:
I ran a check for the fees for the University of Chicago and the University of Michigan, and as Gideon had pointed out to me recently, they are now the same for both International and Local (US) students.
While this is the official case, in effect all but the richest American students get full need-based financial aid, so almost no Americans have to pay full tuition. Whereas it is almost impossible for international students to get financial aid — admissions at all universities except Harvard, Yale, Princeton and MIT is not need-blind, so international students who apply asking for financial aid are almost certain not to gain admission.
It is notable though that at state universities tuition is subsidized for in-state students compared to out-of-state students.
about 3 years ago
Aaron,
I concur with a few others here that having a voice is not really the reason students donate to American universities. I study at an American university and I would consider donating to it for the sole reason that I love the place and believe that it has given me a unique experience and education that I could not have gotten anywhere else. I don’t have a voice in the adminstration and I’m not that bothered by it. Students here complain all the time that they do not have a voice in the administration. Hell, even the faculty complain that they don’t have a voice (one professor actually made that complaint in a speech at the inauguration of the new university president). But, while bitching at administrators, both faculty and students appreciate the university for its unique culture and community. I suspect very few people feel the same about NUS.
Oh, and the financial aid issue is also a significant factor. Huge donations make universities richer, which in turn allows them to offer financial aid to students, so in a way the students are just ‘giving back’ what they’ve taken.
about 3 years ago
I just graduated from NUS and I know why I will probably never donate to NUS. I have no attachment to it. There are many reasons why I do not have any attachment to it, but one of the reasons is because of the interactions I have had with the TAs and Professors in my faculty. I am from Engineering and so maybe my experiences are not representative of what the rest of NUS might be having.
Most of the TAs I have had are not Singaporeans. I guess it is because most Singaporeans don’t pursue graduate studies. In any case, most of the TAs treat Singaporeans as their intellectual inferiors. This impression is a subjective one based on my interactions with them in my lab sessions.
Lab sessions for that matter are a joke. At the start of the lab sessions, we are already given the results that we should be getting, how to get the results and why. Goal Oriented. Not Process Oriented.
The interactions with my professors are not much better. With 3 fingers, I can count the number of engineering professors who actually bothered to converse with me as an intellectual equal, although I concede I am not as knowledgeable or experienced as him but that respect is empowering.
The rest of the professors seem more interested in pursuing their own research agenda than making a difference in their students’ lives. Some even seem more keen in pushing the books that they have written. I once took a module where the sure way to get an A was to buy the ‘textbook’ a professor had written because it was used in the open book exam and most of the questions were similar to what was found in that book if not the same. That course was so not about gaining knowledge.
Anyway, the reason why I mentioned above is because I feel (with no evidence except my subjective experiences) that NUS is spending more on professors and TAs who are more interested in their own academic pursuits such as research and publishing papers (which helps raises the ranking of NUS) than making a difference to the university and the lives of the students.
I am not asking to be spoonfed. I am asking to be engaged. And since I never was engaged in NUS, please don’t try to ask me for something now.
about 3 years ago
I’m not a science or engineering student, but I’ve heard stories. While I do not think it is wrong to strategise to get results, I think that the lack of emphasis on teaching in NUS is something serious. Career advancement is on the premise of research, and it doesn’t matter how badly an academic teaches as long as he/she can produce cutting edge research. The most that researcher miss out on is the best teacher award, which is an incentive that pales greatly in comparison with getting promoted to a full professor.