Should scholarships be given only to those in financial need? [Feb Debate of the month]

February 2, 2010

Filed under: Debaters — | 923 views

Private and public sector institutions in Singapore offer a dazzling array of scholarships every year. Students who perform well in their A level examinations (or equivalent) can apply for prestigious scholarships to fund their university education and assure them of great career trajectory after graduation.  The financial support from these scholarships often includes full tuition fees for the university of their choice (often amounting to US$300,000 and above, for Ivy League universities ), and can sometimes even include a small (or large) allowance for living expenditure. The scholarship system in Singapore is designed on a purely meritocratic basis – that is, as long as you are good enough, you can get the scholarship. It does not take into account your financial status – thus, many scholars actually come from families that could have already afforded to send their child to university without government funding.

So here is the question, my potentially-scholarship-receiving fellow debaters: Should our scholarship system remain based on purely meritocratic grounds, or should we take into account socioeconomic considerations? Is there a difference, and if so, is it an important difference? Let’s hear your views!

[Best Comment of the month stands to win an exclusive DA(S) 5-VCD debate set with accompanying guide booklets]

• 

Tags: Debate of the month

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

4 Comments »

1. 

   There’s lots of high-flung rhetoric about equalizing the playing field and breaking out of the poverty cycle. But let’s face it – the purpose of scholarships is to ensure a steady inflow of talent to serve our country. When it comes to our nation’s top officials, Singaporeans deserve the best. Regardless of your position in the rich dad/poor dad divide, merit should be the sole consideration in deciding who to groom to lead Singapore to greater heights. Should we compromise our future for a feel-good rags-to-riches story? Not when our country suffers…

   Like or Dislike: 3  5

   Comment by J.Y. — February 3, 2010 @ 10:50 pm

---

2. 

   Fundamentally, let us first dissect the main purpose of scholarships today. Why are scholarships put in place? It is to continue to attract a steady stream of outstanding and dedicated individuals into the education service annually. Basically, it is to ensure that the talent pull is consistent, and can essentially be beneficial for both the scholars as well as society.

   How? By making scholarships applicable to individuals on a meritcratic basis, it levels the playing field. It does in no way, causes any unfairness. Why? First of all, when financial concerns are not the deciding factor to the application of a scholarship, it allows both the rich and the poor to qualify. They are both abiding by the same set of rules- that they must perform well academically. There is then, no incentive to offer the scholarship only to the poor. Furthermore, we need to acknowledge today that other forms of financial assistance such as the bursaries are being offered to those who are not financially viable who perform well academically, anyway. Therefore, the poor will still benefit from this separate policy. Unless it can be proven that these policies have been counterproductive, scholarships should still be applicable to everyone.

   Both parties will hence be judged purely on meritocracry. Therefore, when both parties are given the scholarship, it does not undermine the playing field as they stand an equal chance. Then why, is levelling the playing field that important? It will be further elaborated later on how it will send the right message to society.

   Now, moving on to the point on why the rich should be placed in equal consideration. Even though it is true that they are financially able to fork out the cost for education because of affluent family backgrounds, the essential crux does not lie within this. Why? The point of offering scholarships is, as reiterated once again, based on how well these students perform in the national examinations. Therefore, the main issue here is the concern whether these rich students deserve the scholarship or not. The perception is still evident, which is exactly why the rich should not be deprived. If they perform just as well as the poor, there is no incentive why they should not be offered the scholarships. The idea is simple- if one should score well, he should deserve the scholarship, regardless of their financial viability. The consideration on family backgrounds is therefore, of secondary importance compared to this, because the judgement on meritocracry is definitely more significant, and should be the sole factor.

   Indirectly, this is also raising the emphasis on the importance of meritocracry. The offer of scholarships to everyone is fundamentally, a basis towards talent meritocracry. By making scholarships exclusive, what happens is that the emphasis on the significance on meritocracry is questioned. Why? It is simply because outstanding academic performance will no longer be the only consideration for the eligibility of scholarships. Therefore, in order to continue to promote the importance of meritocracry, scholarships should be for both the rich and the poor.

   In addition, it is significant that scholarships should be offered fairly, which is by academic performances. As previously explained how it can level the playing field, let us examine the message that this conveys to society. By allowing both the rich and the poor to qualify for the scholarship, it sends out the message that fairplay is practiced.

   In the case of a hypothetical situation, if only the poor are being offered the scholarship, the likelihood of people developing flawed mentalities that only the poor “deserve” the scholarship is possibly high, which is essentially untrue. This is also, undermining the true meaning of “scholarship”, as it will no longer just be based on academic merit, Therefore, by making scholarships applicable for all, the education system is sending out the right message to society, that regardless of their financial capability, they are still playing on the same level field. Therefore, it is indirectly, an eradication of unsure perceptions.

   Finally, let us examine on the aspect of the government’s perspective. the government’s aim of offering scholarships, is to increase the flow of local talent and to provide further opportunities in careers. By ensuring that everyone stands a chance, it will evidently mean a greater talent pull. Therefore, it is, in the long run, beneficial for Singapore economically, with the interest of society. Therefore, there is no incentive to disallow the rich from attaining scholarships, as that would possibly mean detriments.

   In a nutshell, the education system does not take into account financial concerns, for the simple reasons that through multiple considerations for the interest of society at heart, scholarships should be applicable for everyone. It is and will continue to be beneficial for both parties in the long run, as well as fulfil government’s interest.

   Well rated. Like or Dislike: 8  1

   Comment by Carolyn — February 6, 2010 @ 10:30 pm

---

3. Firstly, what benefits do scholarships bring? There is prestige, recognition and of course, money. As a middle-class family, money is not a problem. Not only that, they can afford their own tuition and other plans to create more chances to have recognition and prestige. But as a working-class family, they already have financial difficulties and cannot afford to spend excessively in terms of the child’s career development. They will definitely be unable to have tuition(s) or have some other long-term plan to increase the child’s career prospects. Scholarships will lighten the breadwinner(s)’ burden and also give the child a larger possibility of successfully entering the business world.

   Most scholarships are given in the interest of the receiving student. So if you deny the financially burdened student of the scholarship and give it to the very able middle-class student, you definitely do not have the interest of the financially burdened student at heart while giving out scholarships.

   Simply, when there are two students with similar grades in consideration, the student whose family is not as well off should be the first choice unless the other student is some exceptional student in other areas.

   Like or Dislike: 5  4

   Comment by Matthew Verdasco Mak — February 18, 2010 @ 8:32 pm

---

4. Hi everybody,

   Firstly, apologies for the long delay. I was involved deeply with another debate – the Budget debate. I’m still drowning in work, but I would like to very quickly wrap up this Debate Of The Month.

   I would like to thank Carolyn for providing a very well-thought out answer – she clearly wins the best comment of the month award this time.

   Some key issues that you should consider for a debate on this topic:

   1. Objective of a scholarship, from the organisation’s view.

   Companies and governments offer scholarship as a means of attracting and retaining good students to work in their organisation. So debaters should ask – what are companies looking for, and how should a scholarship be designed to meet the companies’ needs?

   2. Social impact of scholarships

   Debaters should also ask themselves how society is best served – is affirmative action for the poor the best way to help them? It’s not straightforward – most people are divided on whether affirmative action helps or hurts the minority groups.

   When discussing the idea of “leveling the playing field”, it is important to distinguish between opportunity and outcome. Scholarships are not the end-product – they are a means (university education) to an end (a better life through a good job). Viewing university education as the ends in itself misses the point somewhat.

   3. Scholars

   Firstly, I apologise for the terribly inept label for this point. The issue here is considering what is best for the students – those who can afford and those who cannot afford university. If both student groups want to take up the same job and scholarship (which comes with a certain progression and opportunities in their career), then is it rational or fair to eliminate wealthier students from this career path? Or perhaps can alternatives be created to offer the wealthier students the same opportunities but on reduced sponsorships? Universities call this “needs assessment” when they consider scholarship funding.

   These are just a few of the ways to analyse this debate. Once again congratulations to our winner for this month!

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   Comment by Gaurav Keerthi — March 18, 2010 @ 9:31 pm

---

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

About Us: Goals | Executive Committee | In the Press | Newsletter | Membership | Partnering Us

Activities: Competitions | Training Programmes | Events & Announcements

Articles: Debaters | Teachers | Coaches | Judges

Resources: Rules & Guides | Past Motions & Results | Debate Videos | Links

[+]