JULY 12 — June 23, 2011 marked a momentous date for the Public Service Department (PSD) scholarship programme. It denotes yet another significant step in a series of reforms that are being undertaken to drastically revamp the manner PSD scholarships are handed out.

Under this new policy, PSD scholarships will only be granted to university entrants — from next year onwards we will no longer be seeing the yearly mad rush of SPM finishers filling up online forms on the PSD website and panicking over their interviews. 

An immediate benefit that arises out of this is that it directly addresses a major criticism of the current system — that many students who score well in their SPM examinations go on to perform poorly at pre-university and/or undergraduate levels, thus leading to a waste of a scholarship which could have gone to another deserving candidate.

This is closely tied in with the common perception that the SPM grading scheme is too lax and hands out As like tap water; one’s SPM results are thus not a reliable indicator of one’s future academic success at higher levels of education. 

This decision is, as many would say, tantamount to delegating the selection process to the universities themselves. It is argued that the stringent admissions procedures at most top universities will do a much better job at handpicking students who are most likely to do well at the undergraduate stage; they are, after all, most familiar with the highly technical needs and demands of their own courses.

These procedures are, I dare say, far more appropriate for gauging one’s aptitude for the course at hand than looking at the number of As a student obtained back in secondary school, or even whether he can name three famous French landmarks in an interview, for that matter. 

The decision to change the PSD scholarship policy has not entirely been met with open arms. Two concerns have rightfully been highlighted. 

There is first the issue of what constitutes a “top university.” Do we merely go by official world rankings? If so, which of the many available rankings do we follow? Do we cut the list off at the top 10, top 20, or top 50 universities? What about universities which do not make the cut on the list of overall rankings, but rank among the first in the world for certain courses or faculties?

Do we include or exclude such universities? If we include them, where do we draw the line at where to stop? If we exclude them, how do we justify excluding such universities, especially in light of the fact that they remain some of the best institutions in the world to pursue a particular course that the PSD is sponsoring? 

There are clearly still some finer details that are needed to be sketched out. It is important that the list of accepted universities and courses is clearly defined, and that it is not arbitrarily changed year after year. 

Secondly, there is the issue of seeking funding for foundation or pre-university level studies. This new policy would effectively mean that students can no longer expect a free ride at pre-university level — an obvious problem for many students who cannot afford expensive pre-university programmes at private colleges, even with government bursaries to partially fund the courses. They would be left with no other choice but to join Form Six. 

Bringing the topic of Form Six into the picture introduces a few new problems. I would argue that our STPM qualification is nowhere behind other common international qualifications such as A-levels and SAM where international recognition and foreign university admissions are concerned. However, the main point of contention with Form Six lies not in its final qualification, nor does it lie in its curriculum content, but in its implementation — there is widespread criticism on the manner the course and teaching are conducted, though that is a story for another day. 

As this change in policy will likely result in an increase of students entering Form Six, it is all the more important to ensure that any major flaws in our Form Six system are adequately dealt with. If we are to expect students to be happy with foregoing A-levels or other pre-university courses in private colleges in favour of Form Six, we must see to it that they are not left with the short end of the stick when resorting to the latter. In any event, the fact that there will be government bursaries to fund other pre-university courses will help to somewhat cushion the transition to a heavier reliance on the Form Six system. 

So, what can we conclude from this? Shifting the focus to undergraduates as opposed to SPM leavers is indeed a laudable step in the right direction, but it may be far too early to celebrate. 

Ultimately, the satisfactoriness of the reform will depend on where the lines are drawn in terms of defining a “top university” and the courses eligible for sponsorship. Drawn too broadly, we risk sabotaging the very purpose of the policy change, since we would be taking in students who are not, objectively speaking, the “cream of the crop.”

Drawn too tightly, we run the danger of excluding perfectly legit candidates whose future qualifications might be of great use to the country. We should also remember that the after effects of this policy change will also be highly dependent on the adequacy of our Form Six education system. 

* Yizhen is a final-year law student at the University of Oxford.

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.