Aiyoh, I just cannot believe some people's audacity and presumptuousness (presumption? whatever). All over the Edusave Merit Bursary, which is awarded to students in each cohort in each school who fall within the top 25% in terms of academic achievement for that year. Obviously, it being a BURSARY, there is an income ceiling (family income must be <$3000) tagged to it. Now, first came this letter to both the ST and TODAY, arguing that children from better off families should not be denied the Edusave Bursary. The reason: it was no encouragement for children to be told they are within the top 25% but did not qualify for the award because of their higher family income. The letter writer suggested that all be given a 'token' amount.
Then came this next letter to TODAY, arguing along the same lines that children from higher income families should not be 'penalised' by being excluded from the Bursary. The reason: going on stage to receive the award and shake the hand of the Minister would be great motivation for the child. This writer had the audacity to argue that since it was a 'Merit' bursary, and not a 'normal' bursary (!!), all who qualified on merit should be given the award!
Oh, come off it, people! First, the MOE is the one dishing out the bursary and if they want to call it merit bursary or anything-else bursary, it is really up to them but isn't it obvious with the income ceiling that this is meant for students from lower income families? Second, since they are the ones giving it, if they want to set the income ceiling at $3000 or $2000 or anything, it is up to them too and why should anyone argue with that? Third, children from 'better off' families are normally at an advantage due to their 'better' S-E backgrounds, and it is the children from lower income families who need the bursary.
However, if there are, say, 8 or 10 children in the higher income family (and may I point out here that in all likelihood, there are lower income families out there with 8 or 10 children), then of course the whole situation is different. BUT the child still does not qualify for this particular award based on the criteria set by the bursary-giver. In cases such as these, surely if there are financial problems, the parents could apply for, and be given, financial assistance through other avenues.
Thankfully, there are parents such as this lady who took it in the right spirit and turned it into a learning point for her child by explaining that there are families for whom affording the year's school fees, text books, etc, is a challenge. And this young lady, a past recepient, who, in very kind terms, quite unlike mine, tells people to look beyond that income ceiling business. Let me quote her:
'Just knowing I was in the top 25 per cent of my cohort was sufficient for me (a point made by the other lady too) and it pushed me to work harder, and to receive the Edusave scholarship (NO income ceiling, for students from P5-S4), which rewards the top 10 per cent of the cohort.'
So people with children, nieces, nephews, neighbours, etc, who 'miss out' on this bursary because they don't need it should pat the children on the back (for it is an achievement just to be in the top 25% in your school, bursary or no), congratulate them, take them out for a treat, or even give them a prize of their own and look forward to doing well again (or better) the next year, and the next, and the next... Who knows, one day they may be shaking the hand of the president when they get the president scholarship, or the vice chancellor of Cambridge University when they graduate with flying colours. Hopefully, these children remain motivated (and not by shaking people's hands or getting token monetary awards) and do not get discouraged over this non-issue.
In conclusion, I just want to say that it is really in bad taste to hanker after a bursary you don't need.
Then came this next letter to TODAY, arguing along the same lines that children from higher income families should not be 'penalised' by being excluded from the Bursary. The reason: going on stage to receive the award and shake the hand of the Minister would be great motivation for the child. This writer had the audacity to argue that since it was a 'Merit' bursary, and not a 'normal' bursary (!!), all who qualified on merit should be given the award!
Oh, come off it, people! First, the MOE is the one dishing out the bursary and if they want to call it merit bursary or anything-else bursary, it is really up to them but isn't it obvious with the income ceiling that this is meant for students from lower income families? Second, since they are the ones giving it, if they want to set the income ceiling at $3000 or $2000 or anything, it is up to them too and why should anyone argue with that? Third, children from 'better off' families are normally at an advantage due to their 'better' S-E backgrounds, and it is the children from lower income families who need the bursary.
However, if there are, say, 8 or 10 children in the higher income family (and may I point out here that in all likelihood, there are lower income families out there with 8 or 10 children), then of course the whole situation is different. BUT the child still does not qualify for this particular award based on the criteria set by the bursary-giver. In cases such as these, surely if there are financial problems, the parents could apply for, and be given, financial assistance through other avenues.
Thankfully, there are parents such as this lady who took it in the right spirit and turned it into a learning point for her child by explaining that there are families for whom affording the year's school fees, text books, etc, is a challenge. And this young lady, a past recepient, who, in very kind terms, quite unlike mine, tells people to look beyond that income ceiling business. Let me quote her:
'Just knowing I was in the top 25 per cent of my cohort was sufficient for me (a point made by the other lady too) and it pushed me to work harder, and to receive the Edusave scholarship (NO income ceiling, for students from P5-S4), which rewards the top 10 per cent of the cohort.'
So people with children, nieces, nephews, neighbours, etc, who 'miss out' on this bursary because they don't need it should pat the children on the back (for it is an achievement just to be in the top 25% in your school, bursary or no), congratulate them, take them out for a treat, or even give them a prize of their own and look forward to doing well again (or better) the next year, and the next, and the next... Who knows, one day they may be shaking the hand of the president when they get the president scholarship, or the vice chancellor of Cambridge University when they graduate with flying colours. Hopefully, these children remain motivated (and not by shaking people's hands or getting token monetary awards) and do not get discouraged over this non-issue.
In conclusion, I just want to say that it is really in bad taste to hanker after a bursary you don't need.
Comments