The Imperfect President Scholar(ship)

RE: No perfect score, but still a President's Scholar

President Scholar holds Imperfect Scores
Someone online is of the view that, by selecting someone with a less than perfect score as a President Scholar, Public Service Commission (PSC) is being unfair to those with perfect scores.

I'm thinking that the official response would be that there is NO QUOTA for the President Scholarship. Hence, if Aaron Koh was not awarded the President Scholarship, no other applicants were deemed good enough for it anyway.

President Scholar holds Imperfect Citizenship Status
Someone also asked why the President Scholarship had been given to the PRC girl, Xiao Yifei, who holds dual citizenship, i.e. PRC and Singapore, and has to decide to give up either by age of 21.

In other words, some may argue that if she were to decide to retain her PRC nationality at age of 21 and that her President Scholarship was revoked, the President Scholarship would have been wasted on her. A pure-bred Singaporean applicant could have benefited as a President Scholar instead.

However, the same official response could be applied to this situation, i.e. there is NO QUOTA for President Scholarship. Hence, if Xiao Yifei was not awarded the President Scholarship, no other applicants in the same batch would have been good enough for it anyway.

(Im)perfect Scores are Good for the President Scholar(ship)
Someone else opined that it's a good thing that PSC was in fact considering applicants with a less than perfect score. That PSC had considered this applicant's other achievements such as captain of high jump club.

My take is that a perfect score is not the best proxy for anything, but only the candidate's ability to get a perfect score in school again and again. At A levels, at SATs, at undergrad, at postgrad etc.

Life and work are, unfortunately, not laid out in an examination format. Too many variables. No right answers. Hence, a perfect score does not ensure that one can perform in life/work. Similarly, an imperfect score does not mean that one can perform in life/work.

With regards to the obsession with ECA/leadership records, what has being the captain of the high jump club got to do with being a President Scholar, i.e. future leader of the Singaporeans? How many people are there in a high jump club for the leader to lead? How complex is it to 'lead' in a high jump club, as opposed to say 'forming your own band/DOTA clan' or 'helping your dad with his stall after school' or 'taking care of your grandmother with Alzheimer's'?

The rationale of the selection criteria is that by consistently achieving perfect scores and ECA records, one demonstrates that he is able to (i) persevere and (ii) deliver when required (e.g. during exams). Sounds convincing eh?

But one could observe the same exact behaviour in say the fried kway teow man, who persevere at his stove for decades and is able to deliver the same preciously delicious plate of fried kway teow every time his customer places an order.

If one were to look closely at the fundamentals of the scholarship selection criteria, e.g. exceptional academic achievements, ECA records, community work records etc, one would realise that these are merely crude but easy proxies for its administrators.

What's more worrying is that such criteria emphasize that one has to be the best consistent worker, not one who can deal with sudden changes or a change in paradigm or be different.

Not saying it's not valuable being a consistent worker. It's highly valuable. But if all our leaders are selected as such, then we are in trouble.

Would Bill Gates have been good enough as President Scholar?
I love the Bill Gates example. He is a man of truly exceptional achievements in our time.

Bill Gates was never a grassroots leader, nor captain of  some computing club. He was a nerd who had been obsessed with his passion since he was a kid.

If Bill Gates was Singaporean and had applied for the President Scholarship when he was 18, he would have been rejected based on lack of leadership qualities. Probably encouraged to take up an A*Star, DSTA or Teaching scholarship instead.

But in real life, Bill Gates built (not inherit or take over) an empire based on his passion, and today leads as the world's richest and leader, not in terms of wealth, but in terms of what to do with his wealth so that it will benefit people. And not just Americans, but people of the world.

Bill Gates is a world leader.

What kind of half-a-day scholarship interview session, psychometric test etc can suss out such positive and eventual proclivities?
The process and desired outcomes do not tally.

Isn't it strange that the selection criteria/process remains largely the same after decades? I guess no major change means it has been working well for its designers afterall.