Part I: The Quotidian
Since I am..... (very) slowly... carving for myself somewhat of a daily, or rather, weekly routine, I thought I would provide my readers with an update.
My formal schedule is actually quite light. I am taking a class called "Southeast Asian Cultural Landscapes" on Tuesday nights (18:30 - 21:30). The theme of the class so far has been about the cultural (dis)unity of Southeast Asia, and, as the prof is partial to giving heavy readings, has quickly submersed me into the academic literature on Southeast Asian studies (with which, at McGill, I had virtually no experience). Unfortunately (in my opinion), the prof is also prone to treat this class as more of a lecture- strange at the postgrad level I suppose. Not so bad, you might think.... but 3 hour lectures can be quite painful. It is enlivened somewhat by his constant tangents and personal stories (I think he spent an hour last week talking about ghosts and spirits). For better or for worse, said prof only teaches the first half of this course, and it remains to be seen what the second half will be like.
My other class is on Wednesday nights (same time) and is called "Anthropological Approaches to Southeast Asia". The class is exactly like it sounds, which, for me, is a rare island of anthropological relief in a sea dominated by the likes of geography and sociology (not that the differences are huge...). This is a much more seminar-like class (which is what I'm used to/ was expecting). The only problem is that most people in the class have little-to-no background in sociology or anthropology, and quite a few have been out of academia for some time now, so it really impacts the type of discussion we can have in the seminar. The prof, of course, is hard-core anthropologist all the way and so far seems to appreciate my strong inclination towards the discipline, complete with my unintentionally heavy use of anthropological jargon and name-droppping to which I had come so accustomed at McGill. In both of my classes there is one other token white guy (a Brit and (yay!) a Montrealer).
In addition to this, I am dropping-in / observing/ auditing an undergrad class: the Sociology of Education. Why this class? So, as part of my scholarship, I am "obliged" to do whatever work is assigned to me, which normally involves giving tutorials. However, as I am "new to the system", I was told that I didn't have to do this for the first semester. Rather, I would be assigned a prof to which I could become an "administrative assistant". By the luck of bureacracy, the prof to which I assigned did not want/need an "administrative assistant", but encouraged me (if I were so inclined) to sit-in her class, mostly for my own personal interest. I could also sit-in to the tutorial(s), just to see how they are done, with the possibility of teaching one myself toward the end of the semester. Not only do I find the class incredibly insightful and interesting (I'm learning a lot about the education system in Singapore), but it's also a cool experience being in an undergrad class at NUS- if for nothing else to observe the differences and similarities with McGill. This class is once a week, on Tuesday afternoon from 12:00 to 14:00, with a 2 hr tutorial once every two weeks. To my sheer shock, I learnt today that the poor professor of this class is teaching all five of the tutorials herself!!!! I don't think this sort of thing would EVER happen at McGill.
As for my "formal" obligations, that's pretty much it. There are other things that occasionally come up.... the random seminar to drop into (I went to a remarkably boring one about rainforest aracheology....), and soon, I will be starting my triple language exchange.
Yes, for the purpose of my research, I have decided to higher a Burmese tutor. I found a young lady on Craigs List, and she will start giving me lessons once a week for 2 hours, starting in early September.
But... since my research will be in Thailand, it was decided that I should learn a bit of Thai. So I initiated a language exchange with a young lady from Thailand who, for some reason, is desirous to learn French. My minor is already serving me with practical use (and not to mention, social capital).
But, thats not enough for me! I also thought that, since I'll be here for two years, I might as well learn a smattering of Mandarian. I found a very friendly fellow who wants to learn Spanish in exchange for Mandarian. I don't imagine that these lessons will ever go beyond the most basic level, but it'll be really nice to know a little bit of Mandarin.
In addition to all of this, I have around 400 pgs / week of reading to do for my classes... and I still have the task of coming up with a good research question (I'll keep you posted on that).
Part II: Thoughts on...
a. NUS: Since my last entry, I have actually experienced classes, and had the chance to talk to an array of students and professors. And I have some interesting observations.
At the undergraduate level, NUS is a "state school" and suffers from the syndrome of reasonably accessible schools throughout the world - not everyone takes it seriously, and most people just want to get that piece of paper. The best students, it seems, earn scholarships to study in that golden land of opportunity where all the universities are fantastic and the streets are paved with gold. In Singapore, as, apparantly, in most of Southeast ASia (and perhaps most of Asia in general), one gains a great deal of prestige in going to this golden land of the hamburger.
Despite this, there are many quality (local and foreign) students at NUS. The best make it to the honours level (in which they do a 4th year not normally required of normal undergrads). The best among them make it to the masters level (and so on). So, at the higher levels, the quality of student is quite high. That having been said, there is still, in my opinion, a devaluation of NUS, especially compared to Coca-Cola land and to a lesser extentm the land of Fish n Chips. Oh, and my readers will be pleased to know that McGill is accorded an extremely high status, on par with the premier schools in the world.
The irony, in my eyes, is that, on paper (at least according to THE TIMES, the most reputable international university ranking), McGill is just barely (albeit always) above NUS. In Social Science (which, obviously, matters to me) McGill is tired at 14th, while NUS is 18th. McGill might be better in the bookstore's offering, and the library collection, and the amount of available computers, but NUS has exceptional faculty and its buildings aren't crumbling. Oh, and the food is much better (but such a thing harldly counts in int'l rankings). My point is, on paper and in practise, McGill is just barely a better school than NUS, which is, in the local minds, way under-respected (or, perhaps, McGill is over-respected ... but I niavely try to think this is not the case).
b. grad school: It didn't take me long to realise that grad school is quite different from undergrad. For one thing, you really make your own schedule. In undergrad, you have a list of readings you're supposed to know for the exam, etc. In grad school (as it's been so far), you do have readings your supposed to do for classes, but you're not necessarily tested for them. You are also supposed to read regularly on your own.... ie, find sources on your own interests and just continually read them, and keep current on the literature.
Another thing that was true to some extent at mcGill, but more so now, is the education you get in the hallways. Just talking to people, who are like-minded but have different backgrounds and experience, is an enriching experience. Not only for my personal knowledge, but even for my own research - as my fellow sociologists/anthropologists can give suggestions/feedback on my ideas. IT helps being in the region that I'm researching, as almost everyone here is a decent knowledge of the area.
Perhaps the most important thing, or at least the biggest difference, is that grad school is about social networking. Meetings with profs all of a sudden become more important. And there are more social events to attend to ... teas, seminars, etc. Not only profs, but other grad students (higher-ups and peers) are important for establishing your academic social capital. Fortunately, as grad students are a bit higher up on the academic food chain (compared to undergrads), conversations with other higher-ups becomes accordingly easier.
c. academia: Being in grad school - even at the masters level- is an introduction to the wonderful world of academia. I ask myself everyday if this is the world for me. On the one hand, I really struggle with things like coming up with my own research topic- which is just about the most important part about being in academia. I would mostly just prefer someone to give me something to research and then I could go out and do it- but it doesnt work like that. Somehow, out of thin air, I have to come up with something interesting, feasible, and not yet done. And even if I manage to do that at the masters level (which remains a moderate sized "if"), the thought of doing it again at the PhD level seems quite daunting.
On the other hand, it is only in academia where I enjoy having intellectual conversations with people. I like reading. I like the open schedule. I like the university environment. And yes, daresay, I even like academic writing. I've gotten so used to it that when I'm outside the academic environment - say when I'm in NJ, or even the various placed I've worked at in Montreal, I feel strangely out of place... like I'm talking on a different level than other people. Call it elitist, but I feel a certain connection that I only find with people passionate about learning... and specifically in the social sciences. I like the sheltered strange world of academia. I'm just not sure if I'm cut out for it.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
First official week at NUS, plus a little bit of politics.
I. First official week at NUS
One week of classes is in the books. To be fair, I only had two classes, which is all I'm taking this year. For my McGill readers (who probably make up all of my readership), I thought I'd do a short list of some of the things I've found striking. Of course, I couldn,t tell you what things were a result of a stark difference between NUS and McGill, and what's due to the equally stark difference between undergrad and postgraduate education.
-The profs here are dynamic and come from interesting backgrounds (which is not to say McGill profs don't). The two profs I have this semester are both Singaporeans of mixed background (including part-Westerner), who earned their PhDs in the US (Berkeley and Harvard). Many profs are like this. Some are Westerners (Americans, Aussies, Europeans) who, for some reason or another, decided to end up in Singapore. The sheer diversity of the faculty here makes things interesting.
-The students here (at least the one's I've talked to) are extraordinarily friendly, worldy, and knowledgeable. Yesterday, while I was innocently trying to find a space to do my readings, I kept bumping into people I had met previously and started talking to them, which turned into an interesting exchange of ideas. The different people here are really easy to talk to in this way, and I feel as though a large part of my education here will come from such an exchange of ideas. I suppose this is true and any top-tier university, but here there is such an abundance of people from backgrounds with which I'm not overly familiar.
-Readings are abundant. 200 pages per week per course is not rare. Unlike at McGill, readings are not always pre-copied for the student. Instead, sometimes even at the undergraduate level, the student has to locate the reading (more oftan than not is a chapter from a book, sso its not online), and manually photocopy it. The advantage to this is that due to the relatively cheap price of photocopies (SGD 3 cents per page), expenditures on readings are rather low. However, it is a bit of a waste of time to have to scavange for all of these readings- time, of course, that could be spent on the readings themselves.
-Things close early. Most stalls in the canteen are closed by 7. The library loans desk closes at 9. The library itself closes at 10 (although this might change closer to exams). All forms of transportation end at 11. This means that, unless I want to find a cab somehow, I can't really stay on campus as late as I'm used to. Fortunately, at elast for the moment, the place I'm staying at has a study room that I could use for as long as I want. And 24 hr hawker centres are just a 2 minute walk away. But gone are the days where I could stay on campus until 2 am (although if I move closer to school this also might change).
-Power outlets (called "powerpoints") are not abundant. In study areas, they are only at specialised points which, of course, are usually quickly taken. They are also at random points in the middle of the library, where there is no where to sit (safe for the floor). Although there are a bunch outside, in a reasonably decent spot... which, becuase it's shaded, is actually not too hot.... just the mosquitoes are a bit annoying. This is part of a national obsession in saving power, but it's not very convenient to laptop users. And of course PCs in the computer labs are in high demand...
Now, for something totally different:
II. A little bit of politics
Even on the other side of the world, my daily dose of BBC online keeps me informed about certain things going on in the US, notably the current health care debate, which seems to be surprisingly impassioned. I do support health care reform, although I'm not sure what the best reform is. Not that the Canadian system is horrible, but I don't see it as an amazing improvement to the current US system. At any rate, while I do lean towards some sort of healthcare reform which has the end result of having ALL AMERICANS covered, I do respect the alternative view. However, what I don't respect is the rhetoric and arguments which the majority of people opposing healthcare reform have been adopting. This rhetoric I believe only portrays them as uneducated hicks who have never left their country and who are grossly misinformed (very possibly by fox "fuax" news), about the state of healthcare in different parts of the world.
Let me do this by looking at the rhetoric itself, for example, found in this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8202275.stm, and this closely related video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8200844.stm.
1. Obama is a Nazi-like dictator.
-I don't even know where people get this from. I've seen drawings and posters of Obama, like this: http://roguejew.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/adolph-obama.jpg, although I suppose we can dismiss this sort of thing as coming from the craziest faction of the Republican party. After all, I suppose some asshole will do something like this for every president we've ever had, and ever will have.
-Although it's easy enough to dismiss this as completely lunatic and coming from an extremist fringe. Sarah Palin who, far from being the most qualified and respectable member of the Republican party but is still, paradoxically, among the most respected, called Obama's plan "evil". (See http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=8280701). Not that I should be altogether surprised coming from someone of her intellectual calibre, but I'm not sure how I understand how the endeavour to provide 45 million Americans with healthcare is evil. It might be niave, impractical, fiscally unwise, even stupid... but "evil"?
-My problem in this respect is not that I believe these opinions are wrong (which I do), but I have a problem with how they are expressing themselves, particularly in the case of Mrs. Palin. Such rhetoric is simply uncalled for and, for someone potentially seeking to be president herself, is simply unacceptable. If you want to engage in this debate, there is no reason to use such horrid attacks.
2. Obama is an arrogant elitist.
-Well, I'm not certain if he is, although he might be. But what is wrong with that?? I simply don't understand this problem so many Americans have with elitist people. From the dawn of civilisation, progress has been a result of specialists. In the context of ancient Sumeria or Tiwanaku, specialists might include people trained in pottery, writing, or religion (among many other things). Obama, and other political elites, are people who have been extensively trained to lead the country. Obama is a Harvard graduate which, for some reason, has earned somewhat of a negative connotation in the US for being elitist. And to an extent it's true... after all, people from the "old rich", such as George W. Bush, can attend these institutions based on the wealth of their parental units. But Obama is not a member of the old rich (nor was Bill Clinton); he is what we can call the "nouveau riche". He, along with his wife, is an individual who worked hard, got himself educated, became prosperous, and is also incredibly bright. In addition to being qualified to lead the country, he is a striking example of what's possible in the US- with hard work and quick wits. Surely the most patriotic people should be proud of this? Despite having an extraordinary story, doesn't his middle class roots make him more like the rest of Americans? Someone from Sarah Palin might talk and think lost most Americans, but that's only because most Americans are simply unqualified for public offices. What I think these people don't understand is that public office is meant for people substantially trained and qualified in their field - not just people who believe in God and like to hunt. So in sum, if Obama is an arrogant elitist (which he actually may be), then so what? Throughout the history of the world, the best leaders have been arrogant elitists. (and some of the worst too....)
3. National healthcare is socialist
-Well, this may be true. But why is this a problem? You have to realise that the average American (as a result of the Baby boom from 1940-59) grew up during the cold war, and these old mindsets are hard to eliminate. Too many people have this cold war mentality that communism should be feared like the plague. My problems with this?
a) The idea that communism should be feared comes from a national propoganda movement. While communism may not be the best policy, and certainly hasn't been working well in North Korea, it remains to be seen is a properly instilled communist government, that doesnt subsequently receive embargoes from the rest of the world could actually work. This is something we simply don't know, since the (relative) failure of communist regimes in places like Cuba have resulted, at least in part, from an American self-fulfilled prophecy. In short, I'm not quite so sure why communism at its base was ever so feared, excpet as a threat to American ideological hegemony.
b) The fear of communism is woefully out of date. The cold war is over, and has been over for some 20 years. Communism is no longer a threat to American hegemony. People have to shake off this mentality of a dichotomous world where communism is prone to overtake the democratic world.
c) There is a distinction to be made between socialism and communism. Communism, as it has been practiced, has been in the form of a totalitarian police state. Socialism, as it is currently practiced in different parts of Europe, just involves the state controlling more aspects of society than, say, a free market society like the US.
d) People have to swallow their pride and borrow certain elements from alternate ideologies that work. Some might say, "we can't have national healtcare because it's socialist" with the idea that everything socialist might be bad. But if some aspects of socialism work better than some aspects of capitalism, what is so bad about adopting it?
4. National healthcare doesn't work in Europe/Canada
-Really? Despite having lived in Canada for 4 years, I cannot claim to be a sort of expert. I do believe that the Canadian healthcare system is not among the world's best, and may or may not be any better than that in the US. In other words, I don't care to suggest that healthcare is or isn't better in Europe. My problem is that people make these claims based on ignorance, as in the article I posted above. For example:
-The idea that everyone in GB and Canada hates their healthcare system, almost as if they are actively dying on the streets in a pool of medieval pestilence.
-The suggestion that the British healthcare system is poor based on the stereotyped perception that British people have bad teeth.
-And, what gets me the most, that people make these accusations without ever having stepped foot in this countries. Why? As one elderly man said, "if I go to England, I'd die".
It's this kind of ignorant mentality that makes intellectual argument with these people impossible. People are making these statements based on some arbitrary believe, perhaps perpetuated by Fox News and other outlets of the Republic media. Of course, people who actually DO make it out to other countries realise this belief is wrong, as evidence, for instance, by the man in the video who had actually been to the UK and said their system actually works.
-Oh, and life expectancies are higher and infant mortality rates are lower in CAnada and most countries in Western Europe as compared to the US. This doesnt necessarily mean that their healthcare system is better, as there are many other factors to consider... but what it does mean is that the NHS in Europe and Canada aren't utter failures.
5. It costs to much money
-This, I will grant, is the best argument this side has. And it's certainly valid, after all, the US is already in debt up to its eyes, and already spends more of its GDP on healthcare than most other industrialised country. This, I believe is a fair argument against healthcare reform.
-My problem? This argument comes from a lot of the same people who supported the Iraq war. The Iraq war, as we all know, costs much more than any healthcare system, was based on much more dubious principles, and did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to improve the lives of ANY american; rather, if anything, it further endangered Americans by perpetuating the "threat of terrorism". So where were all these fiscal watchdogs when Bush wanted to invade Iraq?
My conculsion, after this rather long discussion? I do support healthcare reform, but I don't have a problem with people who don't. However, people should use an informed and respectful rhetoric. The popular rhetoric which has been exhibited, in my opinion, reflects a Republican party which, to a very large extent, does not base its opinions on anything ressembling facts, but propoganda and some sort of imagined national ideal of a country better in all ways than Europe and every other part of the world. If the US is to progress at all, this stubborn ignorance has to disappear. Or at the very least, it should be kept marginalised and ridiculed like the Republican party currently is. If Republicans truly want their opinions to be respected, and to keep Democrats at base, they should inform themselves on the issues and should refrain from using counterproductive and inflammatory rhetoric.
One week of classes is in the books. To be fair, I only had two classes, which is all I'm taking this year. For my McGill readers (who probably make up all of my readership), I thought I'd do a short list of some of the things I've found striking. Of course, I couldn,t tell you what things were a result of a stark difference between NUS and McGill, and what's due to the equally stark difference between undergrad and postgraduate education.
-The profs here are dynamic and come from interesting backgrounds (which is not to say McGill profs don't). The two profs I have this semester are both Singaporeans of mixed background (including part-Westerner), who earned their PhDs in the US (Berkeley and Harvard). Many profs are like this. Some are Westerners (Americans, Aussies, Europeans) who, for some reason or another, decided to end up in Singapore. The sheer diversity of the faculty here makes things interesting.
-The students here (at least the one's I've talked to) are extraordinarily friendly, worldy, and knowledgeable. Yesterday, while I was innocently trying to find a space to do my readings, I kept bumping into people I had met previously and started talking to them, which turned into an interesting exchange of ideas. The different people here are really easy to talk to in this way, and I feel as though a large part of my education here will come from such an exchange of ideas. I suppose this is true and any top-tier university, but here there is such an abundance of people from backgrounds with which I'm not overly familiar.
-Readings are abundant. 200 pages per week per course is not rare. Unlike at McGill, readings are not always pre-copied for the student. Instead, sometimes even at the undergraduate level, the student has to locate the reading (more oftan than not is a chapter from a book, sso its not online), and manually photocopy it. The advantage to this is that due to the relatively cheap price of photocopies (SGD 3 cents per page), expenditures on readings are rather low. However, it is a bit of a waste of time to have to scavange for all of these readings- time, of course, that could be spent on the readings themselves.
-Things close early. Most stalls in the canteen are closed by 7. The library loans desk closes at 9. The library itself closes at 10 (although this might change closer to exams). All forms of transportation end at 11. This means that, unless I want to find a cab somehow, I can't really stay on campus as late as I'm used to. Fortunately, at elast for the moment, the place I'm staying at has a study room that I could use for as long as I want. And 24 hr hawker centres are just a 2 minute walk away. But gone are the days where I could stay on campus until 2 am (although if I move closer to school this also might change).
-Power outlets (called "powerpoints") are not abundant. In study areas, they are only at specialised points which, of course, are usually quickly taken. They are also at random points in the middle of the library, where there is no where to sit (safe for the floor). Although there are a bunch outside, in a reasonably decent spot... which, becuase it's shaded, is actually not too hot.... just the mosquitoes are a bit annoying. This is part of a national obsession in saving power, but it's not very convenient to laptop users. And of course PCs in the computer labs are in high demand...
Now, for something totally different:
II. A little bit of politics
Even on the other side of the world, my daily dose of BBC online keeps me informed about certain things going on in the US, notably the current health care debate, which seems to be surprisingly impassioned. I do support health care reform, although I'm not sure what the best reform is. Not that the Canadian system is horrible, but I don't see it as an amazing improvement to the current US system. At any rate, while I do lean towards some sort of healthcare reform which has the end result of having ALL AMERICANS covered, I do respect the alternative view. However, what I don't respect is the rhetoric and arguments which the majority of people opposing healthcare reform have been adopting. This rhetoric I believe only portrays them as uneducated hicks who have never left their country and who are grossly misinformed (very possibly by fox "fuax" news), about the state of healthcare in different parts of the world.
Let me do this by looking at the rhetoric itself, for example, found in this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8202275.stm, and this closely related video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8200844.stm.
1. Obama is a Nazi-like dictator.
-I don't even know where people get this from. I've seen drawings and posters of Obama, like this: http://roguejew.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/adolph-obama.jpg, although I suppose we can dismiss this sort of thing as coming from the craziest faction of the Republican party. After all, I suppose some asshole will do something like this for every president we've ever had, and ever will have.
-Although it's easy enough to dismiss this as completely lunatic and coming from an extremist fringe. Sarah Palin who, far from being the most qualified and respectable member of the Republican party but is still, paradoxically, among the most respected, called Obama's plan "evil". (See http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=8280701). Not that I should be altogether surprised coming from someone of her intellectual calibre, but I'm not sure how I understand how the endeavour to provide 45 million Americans with healthcare is evil. It might be niave, impractical, fiscally unwise, even stupid... but "evil"?
-My problem in this respect is not that I believe these opinions are wrong (which I do), but I have a problem with how they are expressing themselves, particularly in the case of Mrs. Palin. Such rhetoric is simply uncalled for and, for someone potentially seeking to be president herself, is simply unacceptable. If you want to engage in this debate, there is no reason to use such horrid attacks.
2. Obama is an arrogant elitist.
-Well, I'm not certain if he is, although he might be. But what is wrong with that?? I simply don't understand this problem so many Americans have with elitist people. From the dawn of civilisation, progress has been a result of specialists. In the context of ancient Sumeria or Tiwanaku, specialists might include people trained in pottery, writing, or religion (among many other things). Obama, and other political elites, are people who have been extensively trained to lead the country. Obama is a Harvard graduate which, for some reason, has earned somewhat of a negative connotation in the US for being elitist. And to an extent it's true... after all, people from the "old rich", such as George W. Bush, can attend these institutions based on the wealth of their parental units. But Obama is not a member of the old rich (nor was Bill Clinton); he is what we can call the "nouveau riche". He, along with his wife, is an individual who worked hard, got himself educated, became prosperous, and is also incredibly bright. In addition to being qualified to lead the country, he is a striking example of what's possible in the US- with hard work and quick wits. Surely the most patriotic people should be proud of this? Despite having an extraordinary story, doesn't his middle class roots make him more like the rest of Americans? Someone from Sarah Palin might talk and think lost most Americans, but that's only because most Americans are simply unqualified for public offices. What I think these people don't understand is that public office is meant for people substantially trained and qualified in their field - not just people who believe in God and like to hunt. So in sum, if Obama is an arrogant elitist (which he actually may be), then so what? Throughout the history of the world, the best leaders have been arrogant elitists. (and some of the worst too....)
3. National healthcare is socialist
-Well, this may be true. But why is this a problem? You have to realise that the average American (as a result of the Baby boom from 1940-59) grew up during the cold war, and these old mindsets are hard to eliminate. Too many people have this cold war mentality that communism should be feared like the plague. My problems with this?
a) The idea that communism should be feared comes from a national propoganda movement. While communism may not be the best policy, and certainly hasn't been working well in North Korea, it remains to be seen is a properly instilled communist government, that doesnt subsequently receive embargoes from the rest of the world could actually work. This is something we simply don't know, since the (relative) failure of communist regimes in places like Cuba have resulted, at least in part, from an American self-fulfilled prophecy. In short, I'm not quite so sure why communism at its base was ever so feared, excpet as a threat to American ideological hegemony.
b) The fear of communism is woefully out of date. The cold war is over, and has been over for some 20 years. Communism is no longer a threat to American hegemony. People have to shake off this mentality of a dichotomous world where communism is prone to overtake the democratic world.
c) There is a distinction to be made between socialism and communism. Communism, as it has been practiced, has been in the form of a totalitarian police state. Socialism, as it is currently practiced in different parts of Europe, just involves the state controlling more aspects of society than, say, a free market society like the US.
d) People have to swallow their pride and borrow certain elements from alternate ideologies that work. Some might say, "we can't have national healtcare because it's socialist" with the idea that everything socialist might be bad. But if some aspects of socialism work better than some aspects of capitalism, what is so bad about adopting it?
4. National healthcare doesn't work in Europe/Canada
-Really? Despite having lived in Canada for 4 years, I cannot claim to be a sort of expert. I do believe that the Canadian healthcare system is not among the world's best, and may or may not be any better than that in the US. In other words, I don't care to suggest that healthcare is or isn't better in Europe. My problem is that people make these claims based on ignorance, as in the article I posted above. For example:
-The idea that everyone in GB and Canada hates their healthcare system, almost as if they are actively dying on the streets in a pool of medieval pestilence.
-The suggestion that the British healthcare system is poor based on the stereotyped perception that British people have bad teeth.
-And, what gets me the most, that people make these accusations without ever having stepped foot in this countries. Why? As one elderly man said, "if I go to England, I'd die".
It's this kind of ignorant mentality that makes intellectual argument with these people impossible. People are making these statements based on some arbitrary believe, perhaps perpetuated by Fox News and other outlets of the Republic media. Of course, people who actually DO make it out to other countries realise this belief is wrong, as evidence, for instance, by the man in the video who had actually been to the UK and said their system actually works.
-Oh, and life expectancies are higher and infant mortality rates are lower in CAnada and most countries in Western Europe as compared to the US. This doesnt necessarily mean that their healthcare system is better, as there are many other factors to consider... but what it does mean is that the NHS in Europe and Canada aren't utter failures.
5. It costs to much money
-This, I will grant, is the best argument this side has. And it's certainly valid, after all, the US is already in debt up to its eyes, and already spends more of its GDP on healthcare than most other industrialised country. This, I believe is a fair argument against healthcare reform.
-My problem? This argument comes from a lot of the same people who supported the Iraq war. The Iraq war, as we all know, costs much more than any healthcare system, was based on much more dubious principles, and did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to improve the lives of ANY american; rather, if anything, it further endangered Americans by perpetuating the "threat of terrorism". So where were all these fiscal watchdogs when Bush wanted to invade Iraq?
My conculsion, after this rather long discussion? I do support healthcare reform, but I don't have a problem with people who don't. However, people should use an informed and respectful rhetoric. The popular rhetoric which has been exhibited, in my opinion, reflects a Republican party which, to a very large extent, does not base its opinions on anything ressembling facts, but propoganda and some sort of imagined national ideal of a country better in all ways than Europe and every other part of the world. If the US is to progress at all, this stubborn ignorance has to disappear. Or at the very least, it should be kept marginalised and ridiculed like the Republican party currently is. If Republicans truly want their opinions to be respected, and to keep Democrats at base, they should inform themselves on the issues and should refrain from using counterproductive and inflammatory rhetoric.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Another Update from Singapore: Moving, Meeting the Sociology/Anthropology Department
I. Moving in
On Monday, I moved into what will be my home until about December. I was happy to leave Geylang. Geylang certainly has its charms, but it'S probably the most third world part of Singapore. While known for having some of the best food, some of the food there is quite suspect. Its also one of the few areas in Singapore where it's actually (almost) difficult to get by in English... just because of all the immigrants hanging around.
So I moved to Boon Lay. The place isn't terrrrrrrrible. The neighbourhood seems rather nice, there are NUS students around here (ie, people I could talk to), I am lucky enough to have my own bedroom (although I pay double what most ppl pay as a result), there is a "gym" and "study room" which I have access to.... oh and the premises are REALLY secure (CCTV everywhere; you have to use your fingerprint to get in!). The downside? There's not really a kitchen (a fridge, a microwave, a hot plate, and a kettle). There is no sink in the bathroom. The air-con has a mind of its own. The mattress in the bed feels like its made of medal pins, and is without a doubt the most uncomfortable bed I've ever had (I think it would be an improvement to sleep on the floor), and it's particularly far from everything, including downtown, and NUS. It does seem somewhat close to Malaysa however (the Tuas causeway).
In short, the place is liveable, but I'll be happy to leave in December. I think that for what I'm paying, I could certainly do better, at least with respect to location and the damn bed.
II. Meeting the Department
On Monday there was a meeting with the new postgrad students and Prof. Erb. Prof. Erb explained, in rather clear terms, what the requirements of the degree are, and I do have a somewhat better idea of how things are going to work. I do know, for instance, that unlike at McGill, I get a whole semester off to do my fieldwork. It presently remains unclear what, if anything, I will do during the summer (May - July), but I'll keep you guys posted about that.
I had a very nice first impression of everything regarding the department. Prof. Erb was really nice, and the administrative folks are also quite friendly and helpful. More surprising was the fact that despite being the only foreign new masters sociology student (but not the only foreign grad student, as there are a few foreign phd students), the other folks are going out of their way to help me. I guess being the only westerner in a group of 8 or so people who all know each other could go either way: either I'd be ignored (which would probably happen at McGill), or I'd be the focus of everyone's attention (which is what has happened so far). So, to my great merriment, my fellow sociology postgrads are quite nice and I do enjoy spending time with them. Actually I have met quite a few people I consider to be quite pleasant and worth spending time with... the only problem is that, particualry with most of the Westerners I've met, they are only here for either 1 semester or 1 year.
Similarly, my early impressions of NUS are quite good. The infrastructure is as good or better than McGill's. The campus itself, while certainly lacking the 19th century charm of, for instance, the arts building, embraces its 21st century style as well as it embraces and plays into the tropical climate. Food outlets are abundant, cheap, and good. I strangely feel at home at NUS, in a city that, despite its cleanliness, modernity, and anglo-friendliness, is still abrasively foreign. This of course may or may not change drastically starting next week when classes officially starts. Word has it that the corridors get super crowded and chaotic.... although I'm not sure how that will effect me since my classes are all at night (18:30-21:30).
There seems to lack a bit of postgraduate social life (although there is NO lack of undergrad social life), with the exception of the ever-present "teas" (NUS's version of the wine and cheese which, as I found out today, includes much more than tea).
I'll give you guys another update when the semester starts, to give you an idea what actual classes are like (and I might have an even clearer picture of what the next 2 years will look like for me). Until next time... take care, and thanks for reading. :-)
On Monday, I moved into what will be my home until about December. I was happy to leave Geylang. Geylang certainly has its charms, but it'S probably the most third world part of Singapore. While known for having some of the best food, some of the food there is quite suspect. Its also one of the few areas in Singapore where it's actually (almost) difficult to get by in English... just because of all the immigrants hanging around.
So I moved to Boon Lay. The place isn't terrrrrrrrible. The neighbourhood seems rather nice, there are NUS students around here (ie, people I could talk to), I am lucky enough to have my own bedroom (although I pay double what most ppl pay as a result), there is a "gym" and "study room" which I have access to.... oh and the premises are REALLY secure (CCTV everywhere; you have to use your fingerprint to get in!). The downside? There's not really a kitchen (a fridge, a microwave, a hot plate, and a kettle). There is no sink in the bathroom. The air-con has a mind of its own. The mattress in the bed feels like its made of medal pins, and is without a doubt the most uncomfortable bed I've ever had (I think it would be an improvement to sleep on the floor), and it's particularly far from everything, including downtown, and NUS. It does seem somewhat close to Malaysa however (the Tuas causeway).
In short, the place is liveable, but I'll be happy to leave in December. I think that for what I'm paying, I could certainly do better, at least with respect to location and the damn bed.
II. Meeting the Department
On Monday there was a meeting with the new postgrad students and Prof. Erb. Prof. Erb explained, in rather clear terms, what the requirements of the degree are, and I do have a somewhat better idea of how things are going to work. I do know, for instance, that unlike at McGill, I get a whole semester off to do my fieldwork. It presently remains unclear what, if anything, I will do during the summer (May - July), but I'll keep you guys posted about that.
I had a very nice first impression of everything regarding the department. Prof. Erb was really nice, and the administrative folks are also quite friendly and helpful. More surprising was the fact that despite being the only foreign new masters sociology student (but not the only foreign grad student, as there are a few foreign phd students), the other folks are going out of their way to help me. I guess being the only westerner in a group of 8 or so people who all know each other could go either way: either I'd be ignored (which would probably happen at McGill), or I'd be the focus of everyone's attention (which is what has happened so far). So, to my great merriment, my fellow sociology postgrads are quite nice and I do enjoy spending time with them. Actually I have met quite a few people I consider to be quite pleasant and worth spending time with... the only problem is that, particualry with most of the Westerners I've met, they are only here for either 1 semester or 1 year.
Similarly, my early impressions of NUS are quite good. The infrastructure is as good or better than McGill's. The campus itself, while certainly lacking the 19th century charm of, for instance, the arts building, embraces its 21st century style as well as it embraces and plays into the tropical climate. Food outlets are abundant, cheap, and good. I strangely feel at home at NUS, in a city that, despite its cleanliness, modernity, and anglo-friendliness, is still abrasively foreign. This of course may or may not change drastically starting next week when classes officially starts. Word has it that the corridors get super crowded and chaotic.... although I'm not sure how that will effect me since my classes are all at night (18:30-21:30).
There seems to lack a bit of postgraduate social life (although there is NO lack of undergrad social life), with the exception of the ever-present "teas" (NUS's version of the wine and cheese which, as I found out today, includes much more than tea).
I'll give you guys another update when the semester starts, to give you an idea what actual classes are like (and I might have an even clearer picture of what the next 2 years will look like for me). Until next time... take care, and thanks for reading. :-)
Saturday, August 1, 2009
First Impressions of NUS: Registration, Orientation, Other Thoughts
I. Registration:
On Wednesday at 9 am (Singapore time of course), I officially registered at National University. This procedure (or “exercise” as it is endearingly referred to in NUS-speak) is not to be confused with pre-registration and enrolment. Pre-registration refers to online formalities which I did well before arriving in NJ; the point of this seemed to be downloading particular forms which would be relevant for actual registration. Enrolment is when I actually choose which courses (here referred to as “modules”) that I’m gong to take (or “read”)”. This is something which I have no yet done.
So what was registration, also called “matriculation”? Basically, it was a formal procedure in which I turned in some forms, in exchange for other forms, plus my student ID card. What was the point? I really don’t know. Happily, the whole thing (including the wait) took less than 30 minutes, so it wasn’t terrible.
Following registration, I was asked to report to my department. After about 30 minutes of looking, I finally found it and checked in. I was given a key to my personal letterbox, and told a few things regarding my teaching obligations based on my scholarship. I was told little about course enrolment, but I was told that I would get an email regarding that (which I since have), and I would talk to the department chair at a later date (which now seems to be this coming Monday afternoon).
II. Orientation
Thursday afternoon was the “international student orientation”. More specifically, it was a “briefing session” if you will, giving basic information about adjusting to the university, and to Singapore. The particular session I went to was geared towards international postgrads (as opposed to international undergrads and exchange students). Interestingly, in a room of probably about 300 people, there seemed to be only about 20 westerners. At the end of the briefing, they went through a bunch of different countries to see where people were from. First they went through the Asian countries: easily half of all the students there were from China; probably between 20-30% were from India; perhaps an additional 10% were represented by other Asian countries – Myanmar, Japan, Korea, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Malaysia (of which there were surprisingly few), Indonesia (of which there were also surprisingly few), and the Philippines. After exhausting the most important Asian countries, certain individuals in the crowd volunteered different countries that they represented. The first such “exotic” country was Brazil. The Brazilian fellow earned the awe and applause of everyone in the room. From then on, every country was considered exotic, and had between 1 and 5 students: Lithuania, Estonia, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, Finland, UK, Ireland, USA, Canada, and probably a few others. When they announced each country, the people from the particular country would raise their hand, and everyone else would clap for them… it was actually a pretty cool scene.
Since there were so few Westerners (and Americans for that matter), it was rather easy for Westerners to meet up and strike a conversation. I met 4 people there with whom I was able to talk for quite a while…. Interestingly enough, all of them (and all of the other western postgrads I have met since) are studying law. The people I talked to even seemed to be more confused about things than I am… which made me feel a bit better.
III. Other thoughts
Of course the actual semester hasn’t started yet… and it won’t for another week. The first day of class is 11th August (next Tuesday), although based on what I think my schedule will look like, I will start on 12th August. The classes I want to take are on Wednesday and Thursday evenings from 6-9 pm respectively (ie, one class is Wed night 6-9 pm, etc). One of these classes is a required class (a graduate research seminar), which is marked on a pass/fail basis. My other obligations (ie, working with my supervisor, helping to teach) won’t start until the next semester. That, combined with the fact this class + the other one I want to take both don’t have final exams, means that this may be a reasonably easy semester (in contrast to Semester II), which, as far as I know, will end on the last day of lecture, or Thursday 12th November, giving me a two month winter holiday. Of course, I’m not going to book my holiday to Nepal quite yet… I still don’t know exactly how timetables and stuff are going to play out. I imagine I’ll know quite a bit more after meeting with Prof. Erb, the chair of graduate studies in Sociology/Anthropology.
How about the campus? Well, it could not BE any more different than McGill. For one thing, the campus is actually quite big, which is surprising for a dense place like Singapore. The campus itself is not downtown, and is actually not particularly near to it. In fact, it is unfortunately not particularly near or convenient to anything – at least not the main campus where I’ll be based. There is supposed to be a new MRT station opening on the edge of campus, which would greatly benefit me, however, it’s not going to open until 2010 or even 2011. The campus itself is sprawling to the degree that McGill students (even at McDonald’s campus) probably cannot imagine. Happily, it seems that the places I will probably most often frequent (the Sociology department, the Central library, and the Yusof Ishak House – NUS’s version of Shatner) are all somewhat near to each other and, somehow, linked by tunnels.
Yes, NUS does seem to have an extensive system of tunnels. However, “tunnels” is probably not the best word, since it’s not underground, or even completely indoors like in the McGill sense. One thing I really do like about NUS, and many parts of Singapore for that matter, is how they use the tropical climate to their advantage. Hallways and walkways in the buildings are largely outdoors, but covered. So one does not have the feeling of being cooped up inside, yet the shade provides shelter from the strong sun, or the (supposedly) frequent rains. However, these walkways, if you will, don’t just provide an alternative route to where you want to go; in many cases, they are they only paths you can use. While there are quite a few roads going through the campus, they aren’t all linked – or at least not in any convenient spot. This means that sometimes the ONLY way to get from point A to point B (without taking a 45 minute detour) is THROUGH buildings. And this does not seem to be quite as straightforward as at McGill: there are lots of twists, turns, climbing up stairs, and climbing down stairs involved, in a process that can only be described as labyrinthine. On the plus side, the campus benefits from the tropical flora which naturally occurs here.
The one really good thing about the NUS campus is the food. Cafeterias, or as they are called here, canteens, are abundant. The choice in food is as good as the quality. Already low prices are subsidised for NUS students. So at the very least, one serious McGill problem is solved.
Other aspects of NUS life, such as campus clubs/activities, and the actual classes themselves remain to be seen. I don’t really know what to expect, but I’ve mostly heard good things, especially from Westerners. Of course, most of the Westerners who come here are on exchange and they’re basically here to party and travel. A greater emphasis has to be on the latter, because the university has some quite prohibitive rules: the entire campus is smoke free; with exception of cafés (such as the Munchie Monkey café at the Yusof Ishak House), consumption of alcohol is not allowed, not even in residence; shorts cannot be worn during lecture; and, I think I mentioned this in my last entry, at least in my residence, when you have guests of the opposite gender in your room (who can’t stay over after 11 pm), you’re door must be ajar. Happily, none of these rules really affect me, except for the alcohol one. But there seem to be ways around it (like, going to the adjacent 24 hr hawker centre), and I’ll only be at that residence for 1 semester anyway.
If I haven’t learnt anything so far, I have realised that this is a totally different place than McGill, to the point where my constant default comparisons with McGill will always fall flat, except in so far as I can point out the stark differences.
I leave you for now wishing you all the best. Stay tuned for another update sometime next week, after I’ve moved into the Boon Lay hostel and have met with Prof. Erb. Until then: be well.
On Wednesday at 9 am (Singapore time of course), I officially registered at National University. This procedure (or “exercise” as it is endearingly referred to in NUS-speak) is not to be confused with pre-registration and enrolment. Pre-registration refers to online formalities which I did well before arriving in NJ; the point of this seemed to be downloading particular forms which would be relevant for actual registration. Enrolment is when I actually choose which courses (here referred to as “modules”) that I’m gong to take (or “read”)”. This is something which I have no yet done.
So what was registration, also called “matriculation”? Basically, it was a formal procedure in which I turned in some forms, in exchange for other forms, plus my student ID card. What was the point? I really don’t know. Happily, the whole thing (including the wait) took less than 30 minutes, so it wasn’t terrible.
Following registration, I was asked to report to my department. After about 30 minutes of looking, I finally found it and checked in. I was given a key to my personal letterbox, and told a few things regarding my teaching obligations based on my scholarship. I was told little about course enrolment, but I was told that I would get an email regarding that (which I since have), and I would talk to the department chair at a later date (which now seems to be this coming Monday afternoon).
II. Orientation
Thursday afternoon was the “international student orientation”. More specifically, it was a “briefing session” if you will, giving basic information about adjusting to the university, and to Singapore. The particular session I went to was geared towards international postgrads (as opposed to international undergrads and exchange students). Interestingly, in a room of probably about 300 people, there seemed to be only about 20 westerners. At the end of the briefing, they went through a bunch of different countries to see where people were from. First they went through the Asian countries: easily half of all the students there were from China; probably between 20-30% were from India; perhaps an additional 10% were represented by other Asian countries – Myanmar, Japan, Korea, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Malaysia (of which there were surprisingly few), Indonesia (of which there were also surprisingly few), and the Philippines. After exhausting the most important Asian countries, certain individuals in the crowd volunteered different countries that they represented. The first such “exotic” country was Brazil. The Brazilian fellow earned the awe and applause of everyone in the room. From then on, every country was considered exotic, and had between 1 and 5 students: Lithuania, Estonia, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, Finland, UK, Ireland, USA, Canada, and probably a few others. When they announced each country, the people from the particular country would raise their hand, and everyone else would clap for them… it was actually a pretty cool scene.
Since there were so few Westerners (and Americans for that matter), it was rather easy for Westerners to meet up and strike a conversation. I met 4 people there with whom I was able to talk for quite a while…. Interestingly enough, all of them (and all of the other western postgrads I have met since) are studying law. The people I talked to even seemed to be more confused about things than I am… which made me feel a bit better.
III. Other thoughts
Of course the actual semester hasn’t started yet… and it won’t for another week. The first day of class is 11th August (next Tuesday), although based on what I think my schedule will look like, I will start on 12th August. The classes I want to take are on Wednesday and Thursday evenings from 6-9 pm respectively (ie, one class is Wed night 6-9 pm, etc). One of these classes is a required class (a graduate research seminar), which is marked on a pass/fail basis. My other obligations (ie, working with my supervisor, helping to teach) won’t start until the next semester. That, combined with the fact this class + the other one I want to take both don’t have final exams, means that this may be a reasonably easy semester (in contrast to Semester II), which, as far as I know, will end on the last day of lecture, or Thursday 12th November, giving me a two month winter holiday. Of course, I’m not going to book my holiday to Nepal quite yet… I still don’t know exactly how timetables and stuff are going to play out. I imagine I’ll know quite a bit more after meeting with Prof. Erb, the chair of graduate studies in Sociology/Anthropology.
How about the campus? Well, it could not BE any more different than McGill. For one thing, the campus is actually quite big, which is surprising for a dense place like Singapore. The campus itself is not downtown, and is actually not particularly near to it. In fact, it is unfortunately not particularly near or convenient to anything – at least not the main campus where I’ll be based. There is supposed to be a new MRT station opening on the edge of campus, which would greatly benefit me, however, it’s not going to open until 2010 or even 2011. The campus itself is sprawling to the degree that McGill students (even at McDonald’s campus) probably cannot imagine. Happily, it seems that the places I will probably most often frequent (the Sociology department, the Central library, and the Yusof Ishak House – NUS’s version of Shatner) are all somewhat near to each other and, somehow, linked by tunnels.
Yes, NUS does seem to have an extensive system of tunnels. However, “tunnels” is probably not the best word, since it’s not underground, or even completely indoors like in the McGill sense. One thing I really do like about NUS, and many parts of Singapore for that matter, is how they use the tropical climate to their advantage. Hallways and walkways in the buildings are largely outdoors, but covered. So one does not have the feeling of being cooped up inside, yet the shade provides shelter from the strong sun, or the (supposedly) frequent rains. However, these walkways, if you will, don’t just provide an alternative route to where you want to go; in many cases, they are they only paths you can use. While there are quite a few roads going through the campus, they aren’t all linked – or at least not in any convenient spot. This means that sometimes the ONLY way to get from point A to point B (without taking a 45 minute detour) is THROUGH buildings. And this does not seem to be quite as straightforward as at McGill: there are lots of twists, turns, climbing up stairs, and climbing down stairs involved, in a process that can only be described as labyrinthine. On the plus side, the campus benefits from the tropical flora which naturally occurs here.
The one really good thing about the NUS campus is the food. Cafeterias, or as they are called here, canteens, are abundant. The choice in food is as good as the quality. Already low prices are subsidised for NUS students. So at the very least, one serious McGill problem is solved.
Other aspects of NUS life, such as campus clubs/activities, and the actual classes themselves remain to be seen. I don’t really know what to expect, but I’ve mostly heard good things, especially from Westerners. Of course, most of the Westerners who come here are on exchange and they’re basically here to party and travel. A greater emphasis has to be on the latter, because the university has some quite prohibitive rules: the entire campus is smoke free; with exception of cafés (such as the Munchie Monkey café at the Yusof Ishak House), consumption of alcohol is not allowed, not even in residence; shorts cannot be worn during lecture; and, I think I mentioned this in my last entry, at least in my residence, when you have guests of the opposite gender in your room (who can’t stay over after 11 pm), you’re door must be ajar. Happily, none of these rules really affect me, except for the alcohol one. But there seem to be ways around it (like, going to the adjacent 24 hr hawker centre), and I’ll only be at that residence for 1 semester anyway.
If I haven’t learnt anything so far, I have realised that this is a totally different place than McGill, to the point where my constant default comparisons with McGill will always fall flat, except in so far as I can point out the stark differences.
I leave you for now wishing you all the best. Stay tuned for another update sometime next week, after I’ve moved into the Boon Lay hostel and have met with Prof. Erb. Until then: be well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)