<p>I was talking to a parent and they said someone told them that it isn’t official and they have not got it set up yet. Give the office a call if you are concerned.</p>
<p>If I don’t get to go to the USA, I’ll just do NUS Food Science, so I have an excuse for being fat from all the emotional eating I am going to do from being stuck in Singapore.</p>
<p>@iamhopeful Yay for Amherst</p>
<p>@mamaroneck Haha, there’s excuse to be fat everywhere lah. Go to US there’s the freshman 15 :D</p>
<p>@novaris Not sure about future plans. I do intend to work in the US for a bit because my uni is a LAC that’s a lot more recognized in the US than Singapore. Plus, I’m majoring in CS so I think it’s better to get started in the US industry than Singapore’s.</p>
<p>Heh. Don’t mind my fits of depression about possibly having to stay.</p>
<p>Everyone who confirm gets to leave this Fall, please be grateful.</p>
<p>Yeah, I’ve heard of the Freshman 15. Then Sophomore 17? Heh.</p>
<p>i miss home. staying in singapore isn’t so bad. the grass is always greener</p>
<p>Serious ah? Tell me what u miss can? So I can be grateful for Sg, I suppose.</p>
<p>Where are you, btw? Self-funded? First-year student? 
heh, don’t mind</p>
<p>Food. Convenience. The fact that I know where everything is. My laptop is screwy and I don’t know where to fix it. Great public transport.</p>
<p>Family, friends, and the place. Returning to Singapore after months of living abroad is amazing. If you land at Changi at night, take a cab and travel down ECP towards the city skyline, and just look at the skyscrapers and the IR. You realize the whole skyline at night is so bright and beautiful, and you see it differently and realize that Singapore is truly a beautiful and advanced city.</p>
<p>hello people. Okay so I’m not technically from sg since I moved around so much when I was younger. but I still identify most with sg (and miss it SO much) I’m going to UChicago this fall. anybody else going there?</p>
<p>@FoF I know a Singaporean UChicago '13. Don’t know any other prefrosh…</p>
<p>anyone in USC???</p>
<p>i know there were around 35 admits to chicago from singapore this year. but i know that a few of them have got offers from other more preferred unis/are NSFs/waiting on local law/med so probably the final number would be at most half that?</p>
<p>Hey guys, I’m going for my visa interview soon and I just wanted to know how did it go for you all? I’m slightly worried because my parents have little tax statements and the housing deed is with HDB for safekeeping, but I do have a bank statement showing USD 150k of funds, as well as my mother’s bank book with about SGD 90k inside. Would that do? Did they even look at your deeds/taxes?</p>
<p>Let me know, thanks! :)</p>
<p>I’m sure you’ll be fine – have fun waiting in line…</p>
<p>you’re applying in may. you have three whole months to take a few more shots at the visa interview. just go in and chill, at most fail until you get it right lor</p>
<p>Eh don’t want to fail if I can help it right…not like it’s free to keep trying. $183 everytime I try! Haha.</p>
<p>Heyyy. anyone going to florida?? (:</p>
<p>^ i’m honestly surprised that nobody took your username until feb this year.</p>
<p>anw, got 2 friends going to FSU. not sure what they’ll be majoring in, though.</p>
<p>hi guys so since we’re on the topic of going overseas…
WHAT SHOULD WE PREPARE BEFORE WE GO OVERSEAS.
in the end i’m going to uk > us ):</p>
<p>I sent the following to the ST Forum, but I’m under no illusion that they’ll publish an article as inflammatory as my piece, so I’ll post it here. It’s just something I’ve wanted to scream out to parents for a long time:</p>
<p>I read with a heavy heart two ST forum pieces published on May 5, 2010 in support of cutting MT weighting at the primary level (“Cut it to focus on other subjects? Precisely” by Kenneth Kwok [<a href=“http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum...y_522641.html][/url”>http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum...y_522641.html][/url</a>] and “Examine why many families felt forced to migrate” by Jason Lu [<a href=“http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/...y_522640.html][/url]”>http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/...y_522640.html]</a>). Close reading of their viewpoints will show their arguments to be motivated by personal agendas that seek instant gratification, and to be lacking in foresight.</p>
<p>Mr Lu suggests that many families are migrating due to their children facing difficulties in coping with Chinese, and hence it is advisable for MT weighting to be cut. This proposal is absurd at best. Any responsible parents’ response to a child failing to cope with a subject would be to try all means to improve the child’s proficiency. It is inconceivable to try to coerce policy-makers into undercutting sound assessment policies just in order to create a false impression of academic excellence. Even if what Mr. Lu suggests turns out to be true, would we want to subvert a vital educational policy to retain citizens whose first reaction to hardship is to flee the country? Furthermore, in stating that “subjects like English and other vital character-moulding activities… have suffered because pupils have had to sacrifice the time for them in order to study Chinese”, Mr. Lu has revealed his scant regards for MT. It is little wonder, by Mr. Lu’s own admission, that his children detested the language from the very beginning. This is the root cause that has resulted in their poor performance despite much effort and time spent, not a fallacious perception of “unfair” weighting.</p>
<p>In the other article, Dr Kwok’s primary argument in support of cutting MT weighting hinges on two points. Firstly, that the emphasis on a bilingual education will produce “incomplete all-rounders” who are proficient in neither language. As a trained linguist with years of teaching experience, I can assure Dr. Kwok that the viability of a bilingual education is a well-researched domain and attested practice. Examples of successful bilingual educational policies where two or more languages are mandated as compulsory subjects are plentiful, especially in European countries. There are simply no scientific grounds to say that learning two languages will result in mastery of neither. But more speciously, Dr Kwok argues that de-emphasizing MT will allow for students to “specialize” in other subjects where they may have a “natural flair”. He further insinuates that such a move will then provide the “right emphasis”. What is the “right emphasis” according to Dr. Kwok? By the same argument, we can also cut the weighting of any other subject to allow focus on whatever the student’s “natural flair” dictates. Why then target only MT for a weighting cut? Perhaps unconsciously, Dr. Kwok has also exhibited the same less-than-altruistic tendencies of Mr. Lu. </p>
<p>At this juncture, I would like to call attention to a critical but yet untouched aspect of this discussion, namely that the focal object here is primary education which is first and foremost foundational education. Hence is why primary students learn Maths instead of algebra or calculus; Science instead of chemistry, physics or biology; English and MT instead of literature or cultural history. The goal of primary education is to provide the most basic of building blocks, so that all students will have the ability to pursue different domains of study on a firm footing, as well as the flexibility to undertake or switch different field of works later on in life. Arguably, this is the basis for holistic development and life-long learning. Given the foundational nature of primary education, equal weighting given to all four generic subjects is nothing less than essential. This, ironically opposed by Dr. Kwok, is exactly what has allowed “second language dropouts” to reconnect with the language when the need arises. Therefore I find the call to specialize, an often-used line of reasoning in this ensuing debate, to be highly misplaced at the early stages of a child’s education. There is also something to be said for emphasizing groundwork and standing firm in the face of personal inclinations.</p>
<p>The crux of the matter is, as so aptly pointed out by Mr. Lu, emotive in nature. While I understand and empathize with English-speaking families possibly such as Mr. Lu’s, I must also beseech them to be dispassionate and exercise impartiality, not only for the good of their children but also for future generations of Singaporeans. It bears to reiterate that upholding the bilingual policy is a cornerstone of Singapore’s global success. Cutting MT weighting at the primary level will lead to serious repercussions on all subsequent stages of education. Only when English-speaking parents show restrain in displaying Anglo-chauvinistic predisposition will their children really learn to appreciate their mother tongue, and eventually conquer this seemingly insurmountable obstacle. Rather than pointing fingers at all MT-related policies, perhaps its high time parents take a long hard look at how their own attitude maybe negatively affecting their children’s motivation to acquire MT.</p>