Exams are what Singaporean students study for, and for test marks, but should this really be the case? Should exams be abolished, or tweaked in some way?
In my opinion, exams are useless. Exams are a way for teachers to judge how much a student has learnt over the months. It is also for a student to judge for himself. That being said, students usually mug like mad before the test. Thus, even students that have not been performing well, would suddenly turn into temporary geniuses. Not only does this make exams inaccurate, this "studying method" also makes students forget the facts immediately after the tests.
Secondly, students in Singapore are expected to deliver good results. Parents often stress their children out, with test papers and lots of revision. This can affect results negatively, and also affect the children psychologically. Though parents will not want to stress their children out, the way society works force them to buy lots of revision practice for their children, rather put their children's future at stake.
Lastly, there are many illegal hawkers who photocopy exam papers from top schools, and illegally distributing them. This brings out the ugly side of humanity, greed, where we are willing to do wrong things for personal gain. Parents anxious for their children to do well will buy these exam papers, further feeding this endless cycle.
Thus, I feel that exams are not needed, and should be abolished. Also, another alternative is to have monthly surprise tests, so the children are really tested, and have the tests conducted online, so papers cannot be photocopied, and sold in the streets illegally for personal gain, without crediting the setter.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Justice
What does justice mean?
Justice means the quality of being just or fair. Justice can also mean uncorrupted. This is probably the reason why police call themselves "justic". To give justice is to punish or reward one in accordance to equity. This is the reason for laws and the judicial system; to deter crimes, maintain peace, and uphold what is morally right. But the controversy surrounding us is that, does the judicial system really bring out true justice, or is it too unforgiving?
I think that the law and judicial system does serve true justice in a form of punishment, which includes, caning, jailing, fining, and even death. Judicial punishment is used to inflict pain, such as caning, to give a lasting reminder to the offender not to repeat the same mistake. Judicial execution will also serve as a strong reminder to others to think of the consequences before acting. However, I feel that some of these methods are overused and unnecessary.
One such example would be the vandalism case on the MRT train. The swedish vandal apparently sneaked into the sprawling depot at Changi, despite an array of barriers, including fences topped with barbed wire. Once inside, he spray-painted elaborate graffiti on one side of a train, across one carriage. The Straits Times understands that the vandal, a 33-year-old Swiss national, cut through the fence of the depot along Xilin Avenue, in what is believed to be the first such case of vandalism here. (The Straits Times) Many swedish were shocked by the punishment, which is caning.
In Singapore, caning is a punishment often used for both minor and serious crimes, from murder and rape, to theft and vandalism. This has proven effective in many cases and Singapore's second-time offenders is significantly lower than some other countries. I feel that such punishments should be dealt to those who commit violent crimes without remorse or regret. Since they show no mercy, I think we should give them a taste of their own medicine. However, this might be unnecessary to smaller crimes such as vandalism.
Still, justice isn't only about the law. Justice can be in a form of retribution, giving those what they should deserve. Justice can also be used to balance harmony in a nation, where equilibrium balances peace. However, when there is justice, there is hard to have mercy. With mercy, one doesn't get his just deserts, creating an unbalanced scale and may cause unfairness. Thus, I feel that a peaceful society should have justice to keep the country stable, but also mercy to make it seem more humane.
Justice means the quality of being just or fair. Justice can also mean uncorrupted. This is probably the reason why police call themselves "justic". To give justice is to punish or reward one in accordance to equity. This is the reason for laws and the judicial system; to deter crimes, maintain peace, and uphold what is morally right. But the controversy surrounding us is that, does the judicial system really bring out true justice, or is it too unforgiving?
I think that the law and judicial system does serve true justice in a form of punishment, which includes, caning, jailing, fining, and even death. Judicial punishment is used to inflict pain, such as caning, to give a lasting reminder to the offender not to repeat the same mistake. Judicial execution will also serve as a strong reminder to others to think of the consequences before acting. However, I feel that some of these methods are overused and unnecessary.
One such example would be the vandalism case on the MRT train. The swedish vandal apparently sneaked into the sprawling depot at Changi, despite an array of barriers, including fences topped with barbed wire. Once inside, he spray-painted elaborate graffiti on one side of a train, across one carriage. The Straits Times understands that the vandal, a 33-year-old Swiss national, cut through the fence of the depot along Xilin Avenue, in what is believed to be the first such case of vandalism here. (The Straits Times) Many swedish were shocked by the punishment, which is caning.
In Singapore, caning is a punishment often used for both minor and serious crimes, from murder and rape, to theft and vandalism. This has proven effective in many cases and Singapore's second-time offenders is significantly lower than some other countries. I feel that such punishments should be dealt to those who commit violent crimes without remorse or regret. Since they show no mercy, I think we should give them a taste of their own medicine. However, this might be unnecessary to smaller crimes such as vandalism.
Still, justice isn't only about the law. Justice can be in a form of retribution, giving those what they should deserve. Justice can also be used to balance harmony in a nation, where equilibrium balances peace. However, when there is justice, there is hard to have mercy. With mercy, one doesn't get his just deserts, creating an unbalanced scale and may cause unfairness. Thus, I feel that a peaceful society should have justice to keep the country stable, but also mercy to make it seem more humane.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Task 2 E-learning
Point of view
It is written is a view of a person who has witnessed war. It is also very pessimistic about war.
Evidence
Words such as "darkness" and "shines no light" are used. These words bring about pessimism as they are usually used in sad stories.
Elaboration
Light usually means a good thing, however in the context, it says no light, thus showing that there is no hope. Darkness is also usually associated with death thus adding to the gloomy mood.
Situation & setting
The setting is during a war time where even children with no education were sent out to war.
Evidence
This can be seen from "Who someone will teach to fight" and "chalk and blackboard will not be" as children should be schooling, but not at war
Elaboration
These two phrases show that children, even orphans were sent to war. And there will not be anymore education as all there is left for the children, is death.
Languaga & Diction
The writer is succesful in telling us the disadvantages of war by creating a sombre and gloomy mood.
Evidence
He uses strong words such as "darkness" and "no light" that can invoke the reader's emotions. These words instill a gloomy mood in readers.
Elaboration
Darkness and no light shows that there is no hope that the soldiers will come out alive even after the war has ended. Thus making us feel sombre and sad for the soldiers, in this case,children.
Personal response
I feel that war is horrifying as it brings grief, death and casualties. The poem also shows that people who went to war were forced to. This can be seen from the children who were sent to war. They did not even have a primary education but were taught to fight. Thus showing that war is inglorious and people who go to war were unwilling.
It is written is a view of a person who has witnessed war. It is also very pessimistic about war.
Evidence
Words such as "darkness" and "shines no light" are used. These words bring about pessimism as they are usually used in sad stories.
Elaboration
Light usually means a good thing, however in the context, it says no light, thus showing that there is no hope. Darkness is also usually associated with death thus adding to the gloomy mood.
Situation & setting
The setting is during a war time where even children with no education were sent out to war.
Evidence
This can be seen from "Who someone will teach to fight" and "chalk and blackboard will not be" as children should be schooling, but not at war
Elaboration
These two phrases show that children, even orphans were sent to war. And there will not be anymore education as all there is left for the children, is death.
Languaga & Diction
The writer is succesful in telling us the disadvantages of war by creating a sombre and gloomy mood.
Evidence
He uses strong words such as "darkness" and "no light" that can invoke the reader's emotions. These words instill a gloomy mood in readers.
Elaboration
Darkness and no light shows that there is no hope that the soldiers will come out alive even after the war has ended. Thus making us feel sombre and sad for the soldiers, in this case,children.
Personal response
I feel that war is horrifying as it brings grief, death and casualties. The poem also shows that people who went to war were forced to. This can be seen from the children who were sent to war. They did not even have a primary education but were taught to fight. Thus showing that war is inglorious and people who go to war were unwilling.
Analysis of Poem - Children in Darkness( Task 1 for Home Learning )
Henry M Bechtold, the persona, was in Vietnam during 1967 - 1968. During that period of time, there was a war raging and he witnessed what was happening. The persona rarely talked about it, but he never forgot about it. Thus, he always visits Vietnam every now and then. He wrote this poem during one of his visits in 2009. He was in his hotel room in Saigon watching the news channel on the television. At the same time, he was finding inspiration to write another poem on sexism when a picture of a young boy with a helmet and an automatic rifle in hand flashed on the news channel. This reminded him of the Vietnam war that happened during the late 1960s and immediately, began to pen down his feelings of the war and it resulted in this poem.
The poem talks about children who die during war at a young age and also children who does not even have a primary education, going to war.
The poem talks about children who die during war at a young age and also children who does not even have a primary education, going to war.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Home Learning 2/3/2010 Linguistic: An interview with Jean Louise Finch
Q: Scout, how do you feel about the jury's verdict?
A: I was stunned that they chose to convict Tom, when all the evidence pointed to the fact that he was innocent.
Q: Why do you think the jury would convict Tom in spite of overwhelming evidence that he didn't do it?
A: It was because of discrimination of whites and blacks.
Q: Has this event changed your perception of the law in any way?
A: Of course it has! I now know that when it comes to black vs white in terms of law, the whites will always triumph.
Q: Do you think that verdicts should still be decided by juries?
A: I think that we ought to do away with juries. Only the judge should be able to decide the verdict of the accused.
Q: Why do you feel that way?
A: Well, the jury was supposed to be impartial, but they sentenced Tom just because he was a negro. Throughout the trial, I got the feeling that Judge Taylor wasn't really prejudiced against Tom. In fact, I got the feeling that he disliked the Ewells more. So, if Judge Taylor had the final say, I am sure that Tom would be a free man right now.
A: I was stunned that they chose to convict Tom, when all the evidence pointed to the fact that he was innocent.
Q: Why do you think the jury would convict Tom in spite of overwhelming evidence that he didn't do it?
A: It was because of discrimination of whites and blacks.
Q: Has this event changed your perception of the law in any way?
A: Of course it has! I now know that when it comes to black vs white in terms of law, the whites will always triumph.
Q: Do you think that verdicts should still be decided by juries?
A: I think that we ought to do away with juries. Only the judge should be able to decide the verdict of the accused.
Q: Why do you feel that way?
A: Well, the jury was supposed to be impartial, but they sentenced Tom just because he was a negro. Throughout the trial, I got the feeling that Judge Taylor wasn't really prejudiced against Tom. In fact, I got the feeling that he disliked the Ewells more. So, if Judge Taylor had the final say, I am sure that Tom would be a free man right now.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Home Learning 1/3/2010 Interpersonal tasks
Intrapersonal [pick one]:
a. Who would you want to be friends with in the novel? Explain.
b. Which character would you like to play in the movie version of the novel? Explain.
c. Write a diary entry for a major character of the novel.
Answer ( Question A) :
If I was given a choice to be friends with someone in the novel, I would choose to be friends with Boo Radley. This is because he is shields his friends from harm. This can be seen from how he helped Jem and Scout from Bob Ewell's assault. Thus, being his friend, you would be very protected. He isn't corrupted as well, unlike the other whites in TKAM. The whites in TKAM are always shown discriminating against the blacks. Boo Radley stayed in his house for years and did not need to face the outside world. Boo Radley would help me to be calm and peaceful as I do not need to think about the outside world when I am with him. He would be a friend which would help me when I am in need, he would be a friend that will pull me up when i am down. Though he may not want to socialize that much, or go out and have fun like normal friends would do, I know he is always watching my back, preventing me from any danger.
a. Who would you want to be friends with in the novel? Explain.
b. Which character would you like to play in the movie version of the novel? Explain.
c. Write a diary entry for a major character of the novel.
Answer ( Question A) :
If I was given a choice to be friends with someone in the novel, I would choose to be friends with Boo Radley. This is because he is shields his friends from harm. This can be seen from how he helped Jem and Scout from Bob Ewell's assault. Thus, being his friend, you would be very protected. He isn't corrupted as well, unlike the other whites in TKAM. The whites in TKAM are always shown discriminating against the blacks. Boo Radley stayed in his house for years and did not need to face the outside world. Boo Radley would help me to be calm and peaceful as I do not need to think about the outside world when I am with him. He would be a friend which would help me when I am in need, he would be a friend that will pull me up when i am down. Though he may not want to socialize that much, or go out and have fun like normal friends would do, I know he is always watching my back, preventing me from any danger.
Home Learning 1/3/2010 Multiple Intelligence test
Hey guys, we're told to do a personality test for home learning. So please enter d2h884221 into the code box. Visit http://www.bgfl.org/bgfl/custom/resources_ftp/client_ftp/ks3/ict/multiple_int/results/results.cfm.
I feel that personality tests are not accurate, as we tend to lie to ourselves as we do not know ourselves well. Due to peer influence, our answeres may differ from what we really am. We can take as many personality tests as we want, but it would be fruitless. It would fail to show us our true personality. We should not depend solely on personality tests to determine our personality but we should develop it naturally as we grow.
I feel that personality tests are not accurate, as we tend to lie to ourselves as we do not know ourselves well. Due to peer influence, our answeres may differ from what we really am. We can take as many personality tests as we want, but it would be fruitless. It would fail to show us our true personality. We should not depend solely on personality tests to determine our personality but we should develop it naturally as we grow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)