Reading reaction: NUS applicants to get bonus points for 1st-choice courses

I was a little perturbed after reading this Straits Times report (the link leads to a Google cache to circumvent paywalls) in which the NUS Provost announced several new initiatives.

There are two main reasons why I felt disturbed.

Firstly, and I quote the fifth paragraph of the news report:

"Let's say one student with 81 points applies for communications as his first choice, and another with 82 points applies to the same course as his second choice. With the 1.25 points, the student who lists the course as his first choice will get ahead of the person with 82 points," he said.

This is a flawed example because one does not apply for "communications" at the admissions exercise. "Communications" is a major within the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Prospective undergraduates vie for entry into the Faculty, not into specific majors. Becoming a major in "communications" only happens after the first semester as an actual undergraduate at the university.

I should know, given that "communications", which is called Communications and New Media in full, is my major.

Similarly, it would be inaccurate to use psychology, economics, history or geography in this example. He could have used accountancy as an example instead, because school leavers can apply directly into that programme.

It might seem like a small matter. After all, it was merely an example given in passing to reporters at a press conference. But it shows a concerning lack of understanding by the higher-ups of how the systems work on the ground. Worse still, it shows that the people working in the NUS communications department did not get their facts straight before preparing the brief for the Provost.

And it could mislead and confuse people. Imagine if an A level holder is interested in doing "communications" at NUS. If she reads the news report, she might get the impression that she can "apply for communications as her first choice", only to be stymied by the electronic application form which lists no such thing as "communications" anywhere, first choice or otherwise. She would not know that she has to choose the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences option first, then wait until she is actually in the Faculty and has completed one semester before choosing to major in Communications and New Media.

Or maybe she did have the right idea from her prior knowledge of the NUS admissions process. Perhaps she heard from her seniors how the process actually works. But after reading what the Provost said, the waters become muddied and she begins to have doubts. "Maybe my seniors were mistaken," she might think. "Or maybe I misinterpreted them. The Provost must know what he is talking about, after all."

The second reason I was uneasy was that the logic of the move confounded me. Quoting from the sixth and seventh paragraphs:

On why NUS decided on the move, he said: "If you have done well and are passionate about a career in business or computing, for example, then we want to say to you that we support your passion."

"We want to help you pursue your passion," he said, adding that students passionate about what they study tend to perform better.

How does putting something as first choice in a university application form equate to being passionate in that thing? It seems like simplistic thinking to me.

In research, they have this concept called construct validity. A construct is essentially an abstract idea that cannot be measured directly, like love, attitude, aggression, and passion. Yes, passion. You cannot take a measuring tape or a weighing scale to measure these things.

So researchers develop ways to measure them, such as through questionnaires. Many of us have taken some kind of personality test before. Personality is the construct those tests are trying to measure.

Validity refers to how well the measuring instrument is doing at actually measuring the thing it is supposed to be measuring. You cannot use a ruler and claim to be weighing an object because your measurement would not be valid.

Putting it all together, construct validity basically asks the question: "Is this way of measuring X truly measuring X?"

Is what people put as their first choice really a reflection of their passion for that subject?

Or might other factors influence what they put as their first choice? Money, for instance?

With the advent of the digital disruption/future economy/artificial intelligence/big data, I would not be surprised if more and more people start filling in "Computing" as their first choice to try to get their foot in the door of this lucrative industry.

This does not mean that suddenly there are so many people who are passionate about computing, does it?

It is dangerous to assume so, because it could lead to undesirable consequences. For example, some of these so-called passionate students could find that they cannot make it in the field that they chose. Maybe they struggle to understand the course content, or maybe they are just not interested. They realise too late that they have made the wrong choice. Either they drop out and start from scratch in some other pursuit, or they struggle through to the bitter end and graduate with grades unbecoming of one supposedly passionate about the area of study.

When I verbalised my opinions to a couple of close relations I was advised not to air them in case I am marked for retribution by the university. I would like to think that the university is not like that. The university encourages critical thinking and open discussion and honest feedback from all stakeholders. After all, this is what sets tertiary education apart from primary and secondary schooling. We must have thoughts of our own now, not canned answers that we regurgitate. And if the unspeakable happens after this post goes live, that would simply prove something about the university that would not exactly cover it in glory.

So, no fear. I will be alright.