CLAUD

Saturday, November 27, 2010

The Year 1983

Well, folks…exams are not really over, but I am taking a little breather until tomorrow to finish up on my last 2 modules…will be a free bird on Wednesday!

I was reading some academic papers on the 1983 Graduate Mother's scheme and was a little affected by it. Personally, because it touches on fertility issues of which my Geographic interest has a stake on. More importantly, it points out a more important thing about the power of assumptions and fallacies.

It is in my personal opinion that people are not aware of how powerful assumptions are behind taken-for-granted notions about phenomenon. True, the 1983 scheme is no longer in force, but those assumptions remain to be.

The Graduate Mother's scheme was a slew of measures to increase the low birth rates of educated women in Singapore, to balance out on the working-class and less educated mothers who had more children. The justification given was that educated women would have better genetic pool to give allow better quality children for the future of Singapore. Although, the 'future' in reference was to Singapore's economic growth in terms of a skilled labour force to suit the economic shift from low-end low-value activities to high-end, value-added economies

The justifications given for the scheme has been criticised and was largely unpopular even among the graduate mothers. It was felt that it was prejudice and largely based on the even more unpopular idea of eugenics.

It is perhaps cliche by now to assert that genes from better educated mothers do not necessarily make better babies. However, no one questions the reason then - WHY do children from graduate mothers are seen as better than working-class. The schemers of 1983 must have thought that since there is no alternative explanation for this phenomenon, then eugenics must be the explanatory factor.

Yet, relation of A and B does not mean A causes B. Correlation, is not causation. We cannot say that since graduate mothers tend to have children who later contribute more efficiently to the economy by filling those high-value jobs, that the 'mother' necessarily 'cause' the child to be a better worker.

Now when we re-evaluate this argument, the fallacy becomes clear.

I personally feel that graduate mothers tend to come from middle-class/upper-class families and therefore have the resources to give their child/ren the neccessary 'capital' to later on achieve in life. Hence, the child grows up 'successfully' - taking up high-paying jobs and getting good education, and their children in turn, receive those benefits. It becomes a up-ward spiral, which is contrary to what the working-class kids face. They are not well-educated, not because they are 'stupid' or 'less determined' or worse still, 'have defective genes', but rather, they lack the necessary resources and social skills (due to their working class up-bringing) to move upwards. So therefore, they are locked in their own 'failures, of which failing is not their own.

Today, the Baby Bonus scheme is the same. The government matches dollar-for-dollar in the saving scheme. However, working class parents can't always afford to save and if they had money leftover for savings, it would not be as much as the middle/upper class parents. So therein lies the problem.

We need to shift our focus away from the person and look at the fallacious assumptions we place on certain groups of people. If we are not sure, we need to clarify, if we are sure, we need to double-check our certainty.

Sometimes, the more certain we are, the more likely we are to be wrong - simply because the likelihood of making an error is higher. If you are very certain and confident in your beliefs, you are more likely to be unwilling to accept an alternative explanation which might turn your certainty into doubt. I think humility to accept that you might just be wrong, is something that is lacking in decision-making. While decision-making must always come to point where action must be taken, I think that possibility of error must always be allowed. The question is how much error to give is an issue of how much humility one is willing to concede.

After not posting for so long, I think this might over-compensate for my disappearance for the past month. HAHA!

Nat…be careful what you wish for! <3

22:04

Saturday, November 13, 2010

exams

I know this space is hibernating for a while…but i'll be back after exams ok? OK, not right away, but when i'm bored or something…HAHA!

16:27