Education in the New Economy 新经济时代的教育

In the March 2001 issue of Japan Close Up, the writer, who contributes a regular column on education and the economy called New Ed-conomy, notes ".....the best whatever of the future - school, company, idea etc - will have no artificial divides. It'll be marked by its ability to cross boundaries, to promote synergy through an appreciation of multi-disciplinary learning or experiences."

　　Here, in the wake of the many educational changes announced in Singapore recently, he shares one of his favourite themes - the need to teach our students to learn deeply, yet widely.


　　It's that time of the year again when students face that proverbial cross-road. Those who've just got their GCE 'O' level results want to know what course they should do in junior college or polytechnic.

　　 Their older friends - after the anxiety of the GCE 'A' level results - must next decide what to study in the university. Even in the university, some students, after spending about two years studying a particular discipline broadly, are now confronted with the question of what exactly to specialise in.

　　Do these decisions matter? And, given the wide variety of options, do they cause confusion among students and parents? The short answer to both questions is "Yes". I know. For, like many others who make a living in the field of education, I get lots of questions about such concerns.

　　This, of course, is a healthy sign. For it shows that we take our education seriously. And education, for all the hype about how one can learn more from the University of Life than from schools, does determine a country's competitive edge to a large extent in terms of its economy.

　　But going into the details of what concerns most students and parents, one is left with the impression that the wrong questions are asked. In most cases, people just want to know what they should study. By this, they mean - quite bluntly - what they should study to make them marketable when they finally get their degree or diploma.

　　Now, this is not an idealistic article. So it'll not suggest that people should just study whatever they like. Neither will it say that they shouldn't adopt an approach towards education that is too pragmatic, that reduces it to a painful process one endures for the sake of good returns later. For the stark reality is: a practical education matters.

　　But, ironically, sometimes the most idealistic decisions can yield the most practical gains. This is especially so in the New Economy which, I'll argue, can accommodate more variety - in terms of interests - than anything we could imagine in the past.

　　Then an engineering student was trained to be an engineer. An accountancy undergraduate would end up being an accountant. A student studying medicine was destined to be ...what else but a doctor. And if you were inclined towards a PhD, teaching in the university would be your obvious end point. There were exceptions of course but these were .... as we say, exceptions.

　　Today, however, the lines have become blurred to a certain extent. Many of us know engineers, for instance, who've gone on to do their MBA and then move up the management ladder. Others, despite their lack of formal training in finance, have gone on to do good work in top-notch companies like Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs.

　　The scope for diversity in terms of career choices - except in the case of the most professional courses - has led to a very important trend: what one studies is less important than how one studies. By this, I mean it's not the content per se but the core skills one picks up while studying the content that ultimately matters. This being the case, the question anxious students should be asking is: how do I pick up such skills to help me gain market competitiveness?

　　To this question, my answer would be something like this: "I'll develop a strong specialization, preferably in something highly technical (eg engineering) ........Then I'll work on a few core competencies - eg ability to write with exceptional clarity; a disciplined mind that works well with numbers; IT skills and the attendant traits they develop such as logical flow or flexibility; capacity to cope with changes.

　　Having got the basics right, I'll next cross disciplines like mad. Think, for instance, of MIT where the best engineering minds work closely with artistic types to bring about projects whose nature is now hard to define precisely because they've become so "mixed".

　　In short, you must measure up in what you're supposed to be trained in - be it media, business or IT. But that alone is hardly enough anymore. So students in fields where they're given a lot of so-called free time should know better than to just while their hours away. There is much to be learnt - beyond what you need to fulfil to get your degree or diploma.


（The witer is an assistant professor at the NTU's School of Communication Studies.）
(双语观点)

新经济时代的教育



● 蔡崇仁
　　在3月的“Japan Close Up”里，作者在教育和经济课题专栏中写道：“未来一切最好的，例如学校、公司和创意，都不会有人为的划分。未来的特点是打破所有界限，通过多学科研习或经验，促进互补增效作用。”


学生的小发明

　　最近，新加坡政府宣布了多项教育改革措施。作者因此和我们分享他最感兴趣的众多课题之一 —— 我们应该教导学生深入，却又广泛的学习。


　　又是每年一度莘莘学子面对重大抉择的时候了。那些刚获知‘O’水准成绩的学生，想要知道他们在初级学院或理工学院，应该选读什么课程。

　　年纪稍大的学生，经过了‘A’水准的考验后，也必须选择在大学里修读什么课程。

　　就算在大学里，对某一个学科广泛的修读了接近两年后，一些学生最终也得面临要专修哪一科的问题。

　　这些决定会很重要吗？面对种种的选择，学生和家长们会不会感到困惑？我的简单答案是：“会”。我知道答案，因为，和许多在教育界工作的朋友一样，我也会面对很多这方面的询问。

　　这当然是一个好现象，表现了我们对教育的重视。虽然很多人喜欢说，“社会大学”会教导我们许多学校里头学不到的东西，但是，国民的教育水平，毫无疑问的决定了一个国家的经济竞争力。

　　那么，学生和家长所关心的是什么呢？我自己的感觉是，他们提出的都不是关键性的问题。多数时候，他们只想知道应该选读什么科目。理由很简单——他们最终所获得的文凭或学位，必须具有市场价值。

　　我并不是要在这里谈理想和大道理，所以，我不会建议学生只修读他们喜欢的科目。我也不会说他们不应该对教育采取过于务实的态度，为了将来的回报而让学习变成痛苦的过程。有实际价值的教育是重要的，这是无可逃避的现实。

　　然而，有时候，最不切实际的决定，却可能让人得到最实际的好处，令人感到啼笑皆非。在可以容许更多不同兴趣的新经济时代，我认为这样的情形会变得更普遍，这是以前我们所无法想像的。

　　过去，工程系的学生会成为工程师。会计系的毕业生会成为会计师。读医科的学生也会名正言顺的成为医生。如果你的目标是得到一个博士学位，在大学任教是个明显的出路。当然，也不是没有例外的情形，但终究是例外。

　　现在，这种鲜明的划分，在某种程度上，已经变得模糊。例如，很多人都认识由工程师出身，随后取得商业管理硕士学位，并晋身管理层的朋友。更有一些人，虽然没有受过正式的金融管理训练，却在顶尖的公司，例如美林和高盛，有杰出的工作表现。

　　多元化的事业选择 —— 最专业的领域除外—— 带来了一个很重要的趋势：一个学生如何修读所选择的科目，比科目本身来得重要。我的意思是说，重要的不是课程内容，而是一个学生在研读课程内容的过程中，最终所获得的核心技能。这也就是说，焦虑的学生所应该提出的问题是：“我要怎样学习这些核心技能，使自己在市场上具有竞争力？”

　　我的答案大概会是这样：“要学有专长，最好是在高技术领域（譬如工程学）。此外，还需要具备一些关键技能，例如，思路清晰的书写能力、对数字应付自如、善于利用资讯科技（使用它们也能培养逻辑思维和伸缩性）和应变的能力。

　　把基本功夫搞好后，我会拼命学习其他领域的知识。举个例子，在麻省理工学院，最佳的工程师可以和艺术人才在一起进行研究计划。这些项目的性质根本无从分类，因为它们已经变得过于复杂。

　　简单的说，不论你选修的科目是传媒、商业管理或资讯科技，你都必须取得合格的标准。但是，这已经再也不足以应付这日新月异的时代了。所以，那些觉得他们选读的科目，给了他们很多所谓空闲时间的学生，不应该就让这些时间溜走。除了要得到一个学位或一纸文凭所须作的努力，他们要学习的东西还多着呢。