Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Thin tagliatelle in puréed tomatoes with peas: "US schools ban iPods at exams"
This article was taken from Weekend Today in the Voices section on Saturday, April 28th 2007.
Savoy cabbage and cannellini beans in beef stock: "Response to article 5"
Using iPods to cheat in exams? To be honest, I initially thought that using an iPod was a rather Creative™ way to cheat.* However, I soon realised that the abuse of technology to cheat is definitely not something new. Cell phones were banned from examination halls when schools found out that these communication devices led to the spreading of answers. Students could save notes in their inbox and refer to them during tests. In the same way, this harmless music player is also capable of becoming a storage device for answers.
Objectively, I find cheating something that is impossible to prevent. As quoted from a 17 year old student from the article, “People who are going to cheat are still going to cheat, with or without [them].” People with the intent of cheating will cheat no matter the circumstance. With or without their iPods, they will find ways and means to sneak answers into the examination hall. Short of making it a rule to enter examination halls stark naked with only the bare necessities, schools will definitely be unable to clamp down on each and every individual case of cheating. However, even with such a rule in place, I still believe that some desperate students may scribble down answers on body parts or on their stationery. Thus, to completely eradicate cheating, confiscating the external cheating devices will not suffice. The solution lies with the removal of the main internal cheating device- the mentality to cheat.
People cheat for fear of doing badly because they lack confidence in their own mental capabilities. Often, students who cheat are not prepared for the tests or are just, if I may dare say in Singlish, “kiasu”. They are afraid to lose out to their fellow peers and think that having the answers with them will secure them with a definite advantage over the rest. Since all the reasons for cheating originate from the mind, the only way to prevent cheating is to tackle the source of the problems- the mind itself. I would like to quote our very own Rafflesian Principle of Honour. “In intellectual pursuit, I shall reflect discipline and passion for learning and in personal conduct, I shall live in integrity and regard individuals, groups and the community with kindness and respect, and in so doing, uphold the Rafflesian Principle of Honour.” This principle sums it all. By enforcing strict discipline and emphasizing on the fact that we should live in integrity, students will soon realise that cheating is something not worth committing. They are not only cheating the school but also cheating themselves because they will never be able to realise their true potential. By taking the test with an advantage over the rest, they are not only downgrading themselves but also losing the respect of their peers by cheating. Using technology is but only one method of cheating.
It is ironic that the apple, an educational symbol of good grades, now marks the new generation of cheating devices. **
* Creative™ is a strong competitor of Apple in Digital Entertainment products (especially in the area of MP3 players), with its Zen being comparable to Apple’s iPod.
** Apple™ is the creator of iPods
Word count: 498
Objectively, I find cheating something that is impossible to prevent. As quoted from a 17 year old student from the article, “People who are going to cheat are still going to cheat, with or without [them].” People with the intent of cheating will cheat no matter the circumstance. With or without their iPods, they will find ways and means to sneak answers into the examination hall. Short of making it a rule to enter examination halls stark naked with only the bare necessities, schools will definitely be unable to clamp down on each and every individual case of cheating. However, even with such a rule in place, I still believe that some desperate students may scribble down answers on body parts or on their stationery. Thus, to completely eradicate cheating, confiscating the external cheating devices will not suffice. The solution lies with the removal of the main internal cheating device- the mentality to cheat.
People cheat for fear of doing badly because they lack confidence in their own mental capabilities. Often, students who cheat are not prepared for the tests or are just, if I may dare say in Singlish, “kiasu”. They are afraid to lose out to their fellow peers and think that having the answers with them will secure them with a definite advantage over the rest. Since all the reasons for cheating originate from the mind, the only way to prevent cheating is to tackle the source of the problems- the mind itself. I would like to quote our very own Rafflesian Principle of Honour. “In intellectual pursuit, I shall reflect discipline and passion for learning and in personal conduct, I shall live in integrity and regard individuals, groups and the community with kindness and respect, and in so doing, uphold the Rafflesian Principle of Honour.” This principle sums it all. By enforcing strict discipline and emphasizing on the fact that we should live in integrity, students will soon realise that cheating is something not worth committing. They are not only cheating the school but also cheating themselves because they will never be able to realise their true potential. By taking the test with an advantage over the rest, they are not only downgrading themselves but also losing the respect of their peers by cheating. Using technology is but only one method of cheating.
It is ironic that the apple, an educational symbol of good grades, now marks the new generation of cheating devices. **
* Creative™ is a strong competitor of Apple in Digital Entertainment products (especially in the area of MP3 players), with its Zen being comparable to Apple’s iPod.
** Apple™ is the creator of iPods
Word count: 498
Chicken noodle cream with celery: "Response to article 4"
I found the title of this article rather disturbing. I mean how would you react when you read ‘Public transport system not quite ‘first class’’? Haven’t we always been praised for our efficient and well-planned public transport system?
However harsh this statement may be, I could not help but agree with the many points brought up; the points about the inefficiency of buses, the long waiting times, the filthy or non-working air conditioners, the crowdedness and the low level of cleanliness in many of the buses. Yes, I continued nodding my head in agreement as I recalled all the many times I had to wait close to an hour for a bus, the numerous times I had to squeeze onto a bus carrying my heavy softball bag and still trying to keep my balance on the steps and the countless times I could not sit down because the seats were mouldy all over. I was in complete agreement with the article when it suddenly dawned on me that all this while the writer was only criticizing the bus transport system. As I scanned through the article, I found very few non-bus examples of a poor public transport system. The writer had written out of point by narrowing his view and only focusing on our poor bus system alone. As his main focus was on the hygiene level, he lacked elaboration on factors such as efficiency, accessibility or cost, thus making his criticism on the entire public transport system as a whole very weak. I find the title very inappropriate and should be changed to ‘Public transport hygiene level not quite ‘first class’’ instead.
However, even though the writer’s stand is rather harsh, we cannot deny the fact that much improvement can be made to raise the hygiene level. The writer accurately points out that the problem lies with “high touch” surfaces (pull handles) and dirty air-con filters. Though these problems may sound minor, my father told me about a friend of his who contracted Herpes Simplex Eye Disease just by rubbing his eyes after touching an infected blood stain on a pull handle. Shocking but true. Thus, I find his suggestions for the implementation of stringent operational maintenance standards for buses and trains to be cleaned and disinfected every day very relevant.
In conclusion, even though the article was quite well written, I found the title lacking in terms of precision. The title suggested that the main issue would address the poor public transport on a whole inclusive of factors such as efficiency or comfort but the article only seemed to focus on the poor hygiene level rather than on the big picture. However, it redeemed itself by identifying the health hazards and providing useful suggestions to raise the hygiene level. With more precision, I feel that this article would be effective in putting the message across to LTA that much improvement can still be made to raise the hygiene level in our public transport system.
Word count: 496
However harsh this statement may be, I could not help but agree with the many points brought up; the points about the inefficiency of buses, the long waiting times, the filthy or non-working air conditioners, the crowdedness and the low level of cleanliness in many of the buses. Yes, I continued nodding my head in agreement as I recalled all the many times I had to wait close to an hour for a bus, the numerous times I had to squeeze onto a bus carrying my heavy softball bag and still trying to keep my balance on the steps and the countless times I could not sit down because the seats were mouldy all over. I was in complete agreement with the article when it suddenly dawned on me that all this while the writer was only criticizing the bus transport system. As I scanned through the article, I found very few non-bus examples of a poor public transport system. The writer had written out of point by narrowing his view and only focusing on our poor bus system alone. As his main focus was on the hygiene level, he lacked elaboration on factors such as efficiency, accessibility or cost, thus making his criticism on the entire public transport system as a whole very weak. I find the title very inappropriate and should be changed to ‘Public transport hygiene level not quite ‘first class’’ instead.
However, even though the writer’s stand is rather harsh, we cannot deny the fact that much improvement can be made to raise the hygiene level. The writer accurately points out that the problem lies with “high touch” surfaces (pull handles) and dirty air-con filters. Though these problems may sound minor, my father told me about a friend of his who contracted Herpes Simplex Eye Disease just by rubbing his eyes after touching an infected blood stain on a pull handle. Shocking but true. Thus, I find his suggestions for the implementation of stringent operational maintenance standards for buses and trains to be cleaned and disinfected every day very relevant.
In conclusion, even though the article was quite well written, I found the title lacking in terms of precision. The title suggested that the main issue would address the poor public transport on a whole inclusive of factors such as efficiency or comfort but the article only seemed to focus on the poor hygiene level rather than on the big picture. However, it redeemed itself by identifying the health hazards and providing useful suggestions to raise the hygiene level. With more precision, I feel that this article would be effective in putting the message across to LTA that much improvement can still be made to raise the hygiene level in our public transport system.
Word count: 496
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Lobster and tomato bisque: Apologies
To all my dear readers, I apologise for my inability to prioritise my time. The past few weeks have somehow zoomed by, leaving me with no choice but to publish my responses in... yes microsoft word -.- i shall now publish 2 responses at one go :)
Note: I have finally fixed the problem with my posting by shifting the content of each post around. The order is as follows from top to bottom:
Apologies
Article 2 and 3
Response to Article 2 and 3
Article 1
Response to Article 1
Welcome
Please grade me on Article 1 first, then 2 and 3. thankyou :)
Note: I have finally fixed the problem with my posting by shifting the content of each post around. The order is as follows from top to bottom:
Apologies
Article 2 and 3
Response to Article 2 and 3
Article 1
Response to Article 1
Welcome
Please grade me on Article 1 first, then 2 and 3. thankyou :)
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Blended spinach with cheese soup: "It's a question of need" and "The other benefits of work, besides income" (Article 2 and 3)
These two article were taken from Today in the Voices section on Friday, February 9th 2007.
Potato and leek stew: "Response to articles 2 and 3"
I found it interesting that two contradictory articles were placed on the same page. They both refer to the article “Ageing- but still ‘actively engaged” in which NTUC Income is said to retain older employees. The first article’s writer disagrees with older Singaporeans working because he feels that they are causing the job shortage and should leave the jobs to needier people. The second article’s writer applauds NTUC Income for retaining older employees as he feels that it benefits them both physically and mentally.
I personally think that the first article has a very biased perspective. He makes the assumption that the older Singaporeans who work are ‘just working to pass time’ and are ‘depriving others from jobs’. I find the use of the word “depriving” very strong, and it makes the older Singaporeans seem as though they are the main cause of job shortages. Another assumption he made was that all these people are financially independent and do not need a job to sustain themselves. He wrote that they are supported by their children or have sufficient savings and pensions. But what if they need the money to survive because their children are not providing for them? This contradicts his title of “It’s a question of need” because they the elderly will be the needy ones in this case. An interesting inference that I made from this article was that either the author is jobless or that he knows someone in their 40’s or 50’s who is jobless. The phrase “in their late 40’s and 50’s” comes out quite often and there are very specific examples provided that leaves me the impression that the author is describing his own situation.
Throughout the whole article, from the title to the very last sentence, readers get the impression that the argument is one-sided due to the relentless complaining. The way the writer presents his case is very aggressive and he lacks empathy to such a large extent that he actually comes across to readers as rude.
To me, the most disturbing issue was the fact that although he kept on saying that there were no jobs for the needy, he kept on referring to the “needy” in the age group of 40’s and 50’s. He forgets that the greatest impending problem that post-university students face as they enter the working world is the lack of jobs. Unemployment rate is high in Singapore and it is affecting NOT just the people in their 40’s and 50’s but also in the younger age groups. Young adults also need jobs to survive and doing away with the older generation will not decrease job shortages. Our population is constantly growing and the best his short-term solution can do is to provide a few jobs. In the long run, Singapore has to come up with a better solution to ease the demand for jobs.
The second article gave readers a more balanced view about the issue. It stressed on the other benefits of work for elderly people besides income. The first writer only thought that the elderly people’s purpose of working was to earn income but the second writer was able to bring to light other important reasons why they should continue working. Besides relieving financial pressure by providing for themselves, elderly people gain health benefits. Working keeps them physically and mentally active and this is very important to maintain a healthy lifestyle. At their age, their bodies degenerate easily and forced inactivity of retirement will lead to old age diseases like Alzheimer’s if they remain inactive. It is a healthier way to live too because it is definitely better than staying at home and watching television. By socializing and earning an income, it gives them “a sense of self-worth”, thus allowing them to feel useful, and not as though they were living off their children’s money.
However, although I cannot disagree with the first writer that the elderly are taking up jobs, I find it unreasonable that he should push the blame of the job shortage to them when the number of elderly people working is in fact, very insignificant. Recently, the government has also stepped up its efforts in creating more jobs to cater to the unemployed. I have a cousin whose job is finding employment for unemployed people and she states that the main problem with Singaporeans is that they are too choosy for jobs. They are plenty of opportunities, it is just a matter of grabbing it or waiting for a "better" one which might never come.
Personally, I find the complaining excessive to the point that it sounds like whining. Much improvement could be made on the part of the writer to bring his point across pleasantly by using the correct choice of words.
I feel that it was the newspaper’s editor’s intention to put the two articles on the same page. The stark contrast between the two shocked me at first because in the first article, the elderly were being discouraged to work so that they would be more opportunities for the needier ones but in the second article, it actually complimented NTUC Income in its efforts for retaining their elderly workers. One was against the idea, the other for it. One was upset that the elderly were taking up jobs while another presented the benefits of working at an old age. With both contrasting arguments side-by-side, it made it easier for me to compare the different viewpoints.
word count: 908 words
I apologize for my word count that has exceeded 500 words but since I am responding to 2 articles, I hope you can understand that I need more than 500 words. Thank you.
I personally think that the first article has a very biased perspective. He makes the assumption that the older Singaporeans who work are ‘just working to pass time’ and are ‘depriving others from jobs’. I find the use of the word “depriving” very strong, and it makes the older Singaporeans seem as though they are the main cause of job shortages. Another assumption he made was that all these people are financially independent and do not need a job to sustain themselves. He wrote that they are supported by their children or have sufficient savings and pensions. But what if they need the money to survive because their children are not providing for them? This contradicts his title of “It’s a question of need” because they the elderly will be the needy ones in this case. An interesting inference that I made from this article was that either the author is jobless or that he knows someone in their 40’s or 50’s who is jobless. The phrase “in their late 40’s and 50’s” comes out quite often and there are very specific examples provided that leaves me the impression that the author is describing his own situation.
Throughout the whole article, from the title to the very last sentence, readers get the impression that the argument is one-sided due to the relentless complaining. The way the writer presents his case is very aggressive and he lacks empathy to such a large extent that he actually comes across to readers as rude.
To me, the most disturbing issue was the fact that although he kept on saying that there were no jobs for the needy, he kept on referring to the “needy” in the age group of 40’s and 50’s. He forgets that the greatest impending problem that post-university students face as they enter the working world is the lack of jobs. Unemployment rate is high in Singapore and it is affecting NOT just the people in their 40’s and 50’s but also in the younger age groups. Young adults also need jobs to survive and doing away with the older generation will not decrease job shortages. Our population is constantly growing and the best his short-term solution can do is to provide a few jobs. In the long run, Singapore has to come up with a better solution to ease the demand for jobs.
The second article gave readers a more balanced view about the issue. It stressed on the other benefits of work for elderly people besides income. The first writer only thought that the elderly people’s purpose of working was to earn income but the second writer was able to bring to light other important reasons why they should continue working. Besides relieving financial pressure by providing for themselves, elderly people gain health benefits. Working keeps them physically and mentally active and this is very important to maintain a healthy lifestyle. At their age, their bodies degenerate easily and forced inactivity of retirement will lead to old age diseases like Alzheimer’s if they remain inactive. It is a healthier way to live too because it is definitely better than staying at home and watching television. By socializing and earning an income, it gives them “a sense of self-worth”, thus allowing them to feel useful, and not as though they were living off their children’s money.
However, although I cannot disagree with the first writer that the elderly are taking up jobs, I find it unreasonable that he should push the blame of the job shortage to them when the number of elderly people working is in fact, very insignificant. Recently, the government has also stepped up its efforts in creating more jobs to cater to the unemployed. I have a cousin whose job is finding employment for unemployed people and she states that the main problem with Singaporeans is that they are too choosy for jobs. They are plenty of opportunities, it is just a matter of grabbing it or waiting for a "better" one which might never come.
Personally, I find the complaining excessive to the point that it sounds like whining. Much improvement could be made on the part of the writer to bring his point across pleasantly by using the correct choice of words.
I feel that it was the newspaper’s editor’s intention to put the two articles on the same page. The stark contrast between the two shocked me at first because in the first article, the elderly were being discouraged to work so that they would be more opportunities for the needier ones but in the second article, it actually complimented NTUC Income in its efforts for retaining their elderly workers. One was against the idea, the other for it. One was upset that the elderly were taking up jobs while another presented the benefits of working at an old age. With both contrasting arguments side-by-side, it made it easier for me to compare the different viewpoints.
word count: 908 words
I apologize for my word count that has exceeded 500 words but since I am responding to 2 articles, I hope you can understand that I need more than 500 words. Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
