Puzzling figures on university admissions

Update: The profs on my committee are now chewing on my 300-page pile. A short break is thus in order. And just as I was about to sit back and have a cold drink, I ran into a bunch of ST Forum Page letters on university enrollment... which gave me an odd sense of déjà vu (bada bing, bada bong, bada bang).

Seems it was reported in ST recently that there were some 74,000 applications from junior colleges and polytechnic graduates for only 12,800 vacancies among all our three universities (I'm still waiting for a friend to help me track down the original report, but I'm assuming that the figures are as reported; update: got it).

The 12,800 (expected) intake figure rings true, considering the rate of increase over the past years (source).

But 74,000 applications?

The number of students graduating each year with 2 'A' and 2 'AO' passes (including GP) has been hovering around the 10,000 mark between 1991 and 2004 (source). Since Pre-U enrollment for the same period has been fairly consistent (source), we can expect that for 2005, there can't be that many more than 10,000+ graduating with the same qualifications.

The number of students graduating from the Polys in the same time period has been steadily increasing from 6,000+ to 16,000+ (source). Assuming that it's increasing at the same rate, there should be about 18,000+ Poly grads for 2005.

But once you add the two numbers together, you get about a total of 28,000 JC/Poly grads for 2005. This is the total local pool ("from junior colleges and polytechnic graduates ") of local applicants to the local universities. And since there is a well-known cap on the intake of Poly graduates, we should expect the actual pool to be considerably smaller. Let's say that all of the JC graduates (with 2 'A's and 2 'AO's) and 15% of the Poly graduates applied to the local universities this year. That gives about 14,200--let's round that to 15,000--applicants.

Where did the 74,000 applications from "junior colleges and polytechnic graduates" come from? --How many students are applying to more than one university?

more: Found an earlier news report (.pdf from SMU's site) from 2004. That year, NUS received 13,600 applications for about 6,000 places, NTU received 12,000 applications for 4,500 places and SMU received 7,000 applications for 850 places. (That will be 32,600 applications for 11,350 places--from probably plus minus 13,000 applicants.) The report also mentioned that the usual practice has been for students to send in one application to NUS/NTU's joint admission. 2004 was the first year students could apply separately to the two. But it turned out that many applied to both NUS and NTU anyway, and quite a few to all three. add: Looks like in the case of SMU, there were 10,600 applications for 1,260 places.

more: The ratio of number of local applications vs. number of places in the local universities is not a terribly instructive piece of information. What we need is historical data concerning the ratio between number of local applicants vs. number of places in the local universities. I believe that this is the only meaningful way to assess whether it has become harder for a local JC/Poly graduate to get a place in the local universities, and in particular, whether his or her position has been made worse by the influx of international students. And the short answer (I've blogged the long answer months ago; see links at top of this post) is: as far as getting a place in a local university is concerned, the position of the local JC/Poly graduate has been improving for the last 20 years, an improvement that has not been impacted--except in terms of largely unfounded emotional reaction about foreigners taking the locals' place--in any adverse way by the increasing international enrollment in NUS/NTU/SMU. This is not to say that the position of the local JC/Poly graduate cannot be made even better than it already is, but wanting another scoop of icecream is not the same as complaining that one has received one scoop less than those who came before.

maybe more later... (busy editing the dissertation, and selling stuff in preparation for the big move)

Sighted in Toronto

(Loss for words)


(HDB block in the heart of Toronto)


(Penny having some grocery shopping fun)

...back to work now.

Short Update

The (main) professor appears largely satisfied with the complete draft (minus introduction). It's all revisions, endnotes, front-matter, bibliography from this point on. In short: still extremely busy (I don't expect to be blogging much for the next month and a half). But I'm definitely seeing more of the light at the end of the tunnel. Taking the opportunity of a short break to make a few minor changes to the template--including changing the "Time Zone" from "Canada/East" to "Singapore". A big "Thank you" to all the readers who left such encouraging words in the comments to my previous post.

Punk'd!! And posting this at the expense of lunch...

OK, ok... I'm taking a bit of time out of my ridiculously hectic schedule to fill out the 'It' in this ST article on Opposition Parties slamming podcast ban rule:

"However, teacher Victor Yang, 31, who blogs on politics here, said: 'It's a step forward.
'There is a generation that is trying to work towards more leeway and fewer restrictions, and by coming out to say this, the Government is acknowledging that the electorate is changing.'"

Context, tsk, tsk... context... sigh...

In the conversation I had with Serene, the point I was trying to make was that the government imposed restrictions on podcasting and vodcasting reflected its unwillingness to completely surrender control on the terms of political debate and discourse, but that the government was conceding the fact that bloggers will inevitably comment on politics. I was trying to explain the distinction between blogging about politics, and persistently promoting a political viewpoint (which is the condition under which blogs are required to register). Something Data at Singapore Ink also comments on.

I was making the point that since we are expressing political views without persisting in promoting any political viewpoints, we don't need (at Singaporeangle) to register as a political website, and the government isn't likely to clamp down on us. In that respect, the government was conceding ground to political debate that does not constitute the advocacy of a political position. Really, I have no issues with that. As discussed earlier on this blog by Huichieh, there is something in what MM Lee said to Jamie that resonates with me, the idea that if you are dissatisfied with what the political party in power stands for, organise yourself, win support for your cause and take on the government.

I do think the PAP stays in power because it does have broad support among the people, but here is where I made the other point, that the electorate is increasingly becoming vocal, and that the government, in conceding openly (rather than leave the OB markers invisible) that discussions of a political nature will be tolerated (ok, problematic word, I am not going to address at this point) is responding to the changing nature of the electorate.

I am interested in observing how the upcoming and the subsequent elections will reflect changing social norms given that a large part of PAP's success in maintaining its position in power will depend ultimately on the vote of a generation that has very different expectations concerning restrictions on expression compared to the ones before.

Of course, if our views are political and we express them consistently, then of course definitions over what constitutes 'persistent', 'political view' can be argued over (as Data points out)... but I did get the feeling that the fact that more explicit boundaries are being drawn is a step forward; and helps us decide what to say, and how to put it across.

So, those of you wondering how I managed to make such a comment in the context of the ST article, here's the story.

Perhaps Serene was just running a very tight deadline and was eager to put in the obligatory 'other point of view' and had run out of time to explain the context. But, sigh... should have replied through email instead, or if I didn't have the time to compose one, decline the interview.

P.S. I also made the point that the banning of podcasts and vodcasts was something I had no opinion on whatsoever because I have not ventured into the technology (yes, yes... I belong to the Stone Age) and that's something that really isn't a loss to me at this point of time.