The Birds And The Bees

A perspective on the sex education program in Singapore. 

The Nanyang Chronicle 

Opinions: A Matter of Perspective - January 2012

My primary and secondary education took place in a reputable Indian school, which was known for its academic excellence. Yet, in all my years of primary and secondary education, only two hours were dedicated to sexual education, which was entirely based on abstinence. Those two hours have been the full extent of my formal sexual education.

When I first learned of the formal sexual education program in Singapore secondary schools, I thought of it as something incredibly positive, something the education system was doing right. However, on learning more about the state of sexual knowledge of Singaporean youth, it became apparent that simply having a sexual education program is not enough. In a survey conducted among young adults between 15 and 24 years old by Bayer Healthcare in 2011 in conjunction with World Contraception Day, it was found that 47% respondents in Singapore did not use contraception when having sex with a new partner. Out of the nine countries in the Asia-Pacific region that were part of this survey, Singapore had one of the highest rates. Given that the ages of most tertiary students lie between 18 and 25, these statistics can be considered to be a reflection of the sexual knowledge of tertiary students to quite an extent. Misinformation among Singaporean young adults with regards to contraception was also found to be prevalent with one in four believing in at least one common myth regarding contraception methods. You know a sexuality education program is lacking when a sizable number of youth and young adults believe in the spermicidal qualities of coca-cola!

Interestingly enough, although nearly all the youth surveyed in Singapore reported they had received formal sexual education, only 50% of the youth in India had access to such information. However, this vast difference in the amount of formal sexual education received was not reflected in the amount of information youth in Singapore and India have on contraception methods. Half of all Indian youth admitted to not being familiar with the various methods of contraception compared to 42% of the respondents from Singapore. Youth in both countries claimed to have knowledge of exactly 2.8 contraception methods. These statistics clearly demonstrate that the sexual education program in Singapore has not been successful in equipping youth with the practical knowledge on issues such as contraception. This is one area in which the sexual education program in Singapore has a lot of room for improvement.

Given that this recent survey and many others in preceding years have shown that Singapore youths are lacking in practical sexual knowledge, it is alarming that the Ministry of Education is considering changing the sexual education program to focus more on abstinence and less on contraception. Like most Asian countries, Singapore does have a more conservative culture compared to Western countries, which explains the focus on abstinence in sexual education. However, the cultural norms need to be balanced with contemporary practical needs. Based on the survey results mentioned above, it is apparent that Singaporean youth are lacking in knowledge on contraception methods. Given that Singapore fairs very well on statistics relating to the percentage of youth that receive formal sexual education, perhaps the focus should not be on increasing the amount of formal sexual education received. Emphasis should instead be placed on efforts to make the current sexual education program more relevant by providing information on practical issues such as contraception. The problem with the sexual education program in Singapore is one of quality, not quantity.

MAYBE ONE DAY WE’LL ALL GET A’s AND 5.0 CGPAs

Latest findings on the phenomenon of Grade Inflation and what they could mean for us

NTUSU Tribune
Opinions - August 2011

The definition of Insanity Grade Inflation is doing the same thing over and over and expecting getting different results.

“In the 1960s C was the most common grade given on college campuses,” said Stuart Rojstaczer, co-author of a recent American study exploring grade inflation, on a KUOW radio show (I plead guilty on the count of radio-listening). I switched tabs on my browser to a New York Times article about the same study. “Most recently nearly 43% of all letter grades given were A’s.” My jaw may or may not have hit the floor at this point. The study went on to say that students were studying, on average, ten hours a week less than they used to back in the 60s. Also, students were learning less in college. Translation- students are not getting smarter or working harder, they’re just getting higher grades.

As a student I can’t honestly condemn anything that results in me getting higher grades, especially when it allows for fewer all-nighters. Pragmatically speaking, we’re in a really competitive environment and no one wants a lower CGPA. When selecting courses, the average grade for the course in previous semesters is always a question posed to veterans of the course. Is it deplorable that we sometimes take courses because they offer higher grades over others that may be more interesting?

Deplorable or not, grade inflation is definitely a negative externality for society. With low grades becoming something of a rarity, students who would in the past not be able to pass certain subjects, now do. This does not help the quality of professionals that step out into the workplace. Do you really want to visit a doctor who isn’t that good but graduated anyway? Would you want to drive over a bridge constructed by a dodgy civil engineer? I think not!

Secondly, if the quality of the work done by students is not reflected in the grading, then that erodes the trustworthiness of grades as a measure of academic proficiency. Furthermore, cut-offs for entry into graduate programs and minimum requirements for jobs keep inching upwards to unprecedented levels. This is turn could increase pressure on colleges to allow even higher grades, creating a vicious cycle. Eventually then we can all just get A’s by default and education and college will cease to have any semblance of a relationship!

The study in question is entitled “Where A Is Ordinary: The Evolution of American College and University Grading, 1940–2009”. Clearly the study does not include NTU. However, it does make one wonder if such a phenomenon exists in Singapore as well. It’s difficult to decipher with certainty but, from personal experience, A’s and B’s do seem to constitute a majority of the grades, although not quite the 73%-86% of US universities. It is possible that we experience grade inflation, but to a lesser extent than the US.

Knowing all of this, I can’t help but wonder if not being in a US University that gives 43% of its students A’s puts me at a disadvantage. At the same time, I don’t think seeing an A will feel like as much of an accomplishment anymore!

Risqué Education..

...Is kind of an oxymoron!

NTUSU Tribune

Opinions - April 2011

In early March, a live sex demonstration in an optional after class session of a ‘Human Sexuality’ course at Northwestern University sparked outrage and controversy that spread far and wide across the World Wide Web. Professor John Michael Bailey intended this optional session to be a discussion with members of a “Bondage, Discipline, Sadism and Masochism”, or BDSM group about fetishes and sex toys. However, it evolved into a live sex demonstration involving a naked woman and a sex toy.

A fair number of undergraduates would have taken a course in which a provocative video clip or two was shown by the instructor in the context of the course. This means that there is certainly some leeway instructors have with regards to what content they choose to include in their teaching material. So at what point though does something become too provocative or sexual to be employed in a class setting as a teaching aid? How far is too far when it coming to teaching?

There is certainly no distinct line between what is appropriate in the classroom and what is not. However, you know you’re crossed the line into the inappropriate category when one couldn’t distinguish between a pornographic clip and a recorded undergraduate class when both are put on mute! Criticism directed at Professor Bailey clearly goes to show that the majority thinks that it was a bad judgement call to allow a live demonstration during the optional class. The queer thing is that all of this criticism is backed purely by moral edicts and emotions. There isn’t one concrete reason that anyone has given in support of their stance. That got me thinking, why does everybody think that live sexual demonstrations absolutely do not have a place in the classroom?

The crux of the issue is really convention and societal norms. Sexual activity has always been something that belongs behind closed doors. It’s the skeleton in the closet that occupies the closets of an extremely large percentage of the world’s population. Live sex acts in non-educational settings create a fair amount of controversy, so one would only expect a lot more controversy when the act moves to a classroom setting. While proponents may argue that there may be some academic value behind all the controversy, frankly, I don’t think teenage minds are capable of distilling academic value from a live sex act! Therein lays the real reason why Professor Bailey should have declined permission for the demonstration of a sexual act in front of his class.

It is most certainly true that exposure to explicit content is a part college life to at least some extent for most undergraduates. However, for a teenage mind there is not much academic value associated with such content. After this controversy it’s fairly clear that no other academic will dare to venture into the murky waters that Professor Bailey ventured into earlier this month. That’s not to say that live sexual acts will disappear from student lives, but it’s probably for the better that they will disappear from classrooms.

“Your Toaster Will End Up Killing You”

Rest assured ‘Watson’ is not the beginning of the take-over of the planet by machines.

NTUSU Tribune
Opinions - March 2010

In early February a supercomputer by the name of ‘Watson’ beat the best human ‘Jeopardy!’ players at their own game. The next day headlines read something to the tune of, “IBM’s Watson Supercomputer destroys all humans in Jeopardy”. “Watson will flip out one day and your toaster will end up killing you”, was a comment posted on ‘Youtube’ by “heliosc7” in response to this historic event. Apparently, the ‘Matrix’ age is almost upon us and we must decide whether we should pick the blue or the red pill when given the choice.

Honestly, it was the funniest thing I had come across this year. A supercomputer the size of ten refrigerators with a 15TB Random Access Memory, or RAM, and a 5GB/s processing capability does not mark the beginning of planetary colonization by machines. In fact, if anything, it is the logical progression of the Information Age. With the sheer volume of information in existence, it is impossible for a human being to acquire comprehensive and in-depth knowledge in the few decades that he or she has on planet Earth. We need a machine capable of processing all the information out there on a particular subject and supplying it when need be. ‘Watson’ could very well be a revolution in the making in that regard.

Getting back to the matter at hand, there are a few reasons why there is no need for alarm on the machine-rule front. Firstly, ‘Watson’ is a supercomputer and not a form of artificial intelligence. Consciousness and life are mysteries we haven’t solved yet. We cannot explain why putting the right molecules in the right sequence equals life. Until we get to the root of the “magic” that is consciousness we can hardly replicate it artificially.

The other major reason why we shouldn’t stay up at night looking out for machine captors is that we are not even close to artificially replicating the sheer complexity that is us. ‘Watson’ is the size of ten refrigerators and can do only part of what we humans, less than the size of one refrigerator, have the capability to do. Watson processes information and provides answers.  We can do that too. And we can walk, dance, love and dream of and build ‘Watson’. Added to that is the fact that ‘Watson’ isn’t always right; on ‘Jeopardy!’ it was beaten to the buzzer and also gave incorrect answers.

I think what ‘Watson’ should be is a source of excitement. Human language in all its complexity can be “understood” by a computer. That is a great achievement. As Dr. Paul Bloom, a researcher at IBM, beautifully and aptly said, “Life is really about questions and answers. Watson can now help us get some of those answers,”

Unfortunately, or fortunately, this means that the following prediction is more likely to come to a theatre near you than a page one headline emblazoned on a newspaper near you: “The system goes on-line August 4^th 2011. Human decisions are removed from strategic defence. Watson begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14am Eastern time August 29^th.” (comment by “frozenphil” on ‘Youtube’.)

Julian Assange: Angel and/or Demon?

Judging New Media’s Robin Hood and the currency of information.

NTUSU Tribune

Opinions - February 2010

Julian Assange is hailed as the man behind ‘Wikileaks’. While everyone has heard of the organisation headed by Assange, few may know that it started in 2006 and has won many awards including the Economist’s New Media Award in 2008 and Amnesty International’s UK Media Award in 2009.

We still haven’t completely figured out whether Robin Hood was a hero or a thief. That makes judging Julian Assange a little bit difficult. So does the TIME magazine reader’s choice ‘Person of the Year 2010’ metaphorically accessorize with horns and a tail or wings and a halo?

Officially ‘Wikileaks’ proclaims itself to be a platform for “the revealing of suppressed & censored injustices”. This year though, it appears that Assange decided he was bored and needed a good laugh. So he released cables that revealed less information about injustices unbeknownst to us and more information that embarrassed governments.

The ideals of complete freedom of information and transparent governance sound very good on paper. Anybody championing these two causes would likely be seen as a hero. But these are ideals that look much better on paper than in reality.

There is a documentary entitled “We Live in Public” that tells the story of a dot-com kid named “Josh Harris”. He builds a community called “Quiet” where people live in a society that is entirely public. Every move an inhabitant makes is filmed; there is absolutely no privacy. The result – chaos and barbarism. I think that the claim that diplomacy needs a certain amount of privacy to function effectively holds some water. If we can’t do without a little bit of privacy, why do we expect the people who govern us to? Deciding what the public needs to know is tricky. But do we really need to know everything? Do we even really care enough to want to know everything? And if we don’t trust the government to decide what we ought to know, why should we trust Julian Assange and a less-than-transparent ‘Wikileaks’ operation?

The Book of Proverbs says that Knowledge is power. If you think about it, that makes complete sense. Corporations make money from knowledge they have and we do not. Governments can govern and stay in power by knowing what we don’t. Similarly, Julian Assange has power over governments worldwide by virtue of information that he has that can threaten the government’s power and trigger public scandals of magnanimous proportions. You have to wonder whether it is the power that fuels ‘Wikileaks’ rather than the ideals of free information.

Human beings and quantum particles have one common characteristic – they both behave differently in the presence of an observer. With ‘Wikileaks’ playing big brother in the diplomatic process, international relations could be fundamentally impacted. When nuclear power and world economies are at stake Wikileaks could lead to disastrous outcomes with just one errant disclosure. That makes the ‘Wikileaks’ proposition highly risky, a risk it may not be worth.

I cannot pretend to know the intentions of Julian Assange. Given Wikileaks’s not-really-moral means and suspect ends I would venture to say that Assange is at the very least a fallen angel if not a devil in disguise.

Why Education Reform As We Know It Is Smoke And Mirrors

Or have “We don’t need no education” become the new global anthem...

[NTUSU Tribune - Unthemed - October 2010]

Education Reform is an issue widely used as political propaganda. Recent propaganda with regard to education reform largely deals with the technological upgrade of our current education system. The introduction of technology in some classrooms is hailed as a major achievement; education is now keeping up with the times. Or is it?

There was a time when information was not as easily and widely available. In such a scenario, there was value in memorizing information needed frequently. Hence, education rationally involved some amount of memorization. The world now, however, is entirely different. Information of any and every kind is a few button presses away for a large percentage of the world’s population. With the accelerating spread of technology to third-world societies, many envision a day when the whole world will have such easy access to information. In a world where searching for information and correctly recalling memorized information takes approximately the same amount of time, memorization of information loses its value.

Easy information access implies a shift in value from recalling information to efficiently locating the required information and processing it. This is exactly what our education does not teach us to do. A basic task like searching for information efficiently is completely overlooked. In the sea of information that is the internet, finding authentic and relevant information is not an easy task. There are ways and there are sources to accomplish a search efficiently and accurately; why that is not a part of our education, frankly entirely eludes me. After required information is located there is the process of utilising the information to attain a particular end result. Again, a very crucial skill and yet again a skill we are assumed to either be born with or pick up on our own!

While prophecies about the complete absence of paper books may be unlikely, those regarding all books being available digitally are very likely to materialise. With endeavours such as Google Books doing the rounds, it is very likely that soon enough all our information could be available digitally. And to imagine that a resource like this would lack the people to exploit it simply because our education did not cater for it is a pity.

 

Education and Education Reform in today’s world need to be rethought. The function of education has drastically changed with the coming of Web2.0. Sharing information has never been this easy. Yet ascertaining the authenticity of information that is shared has never been harder. If the goal of education is indeed to empower people then it should take into account the skills it needs to impart to achieve that empowerment.

Education will have to evolve with society or it will lose its value-add feature that we pay dearly for. In the future, education will either be based on an entirely different concept or it will be extremely affordable due to a lack of demand. Whichever route it eventually takes, the history of education two decades later will make for a truly interesting story.

Chirps and Tweets Through the Anthropological Looking Glass

Our social media activity has a lot to say about us as a society. Here’s my take on some of the things it says.

[NTUSU Tribune - Opinions Unthemed - Sep '10]

There have been over 20 billion tweets to date.

That’s approximately three times the world’s current population.

With almost 632,000 unique ‘Twitter’ users and 1.9 million tweets per day, ‘Twitter’ is a force to be reckoned with in the social media empire. The extent of twitter’s permeation has made it a viable resource to tap into the societal pulse; it can give us an idea of what we’re talking about and what we’re interested in. Trending topics are a pretty revolutionary feature in this regard because they monitor the things we’re talking about on the social media platform. It’s pretty much every anthropologist’s dream and has piqued my curiosity (which is why you’re reading this article).

Until about four months ago, trending topics on twitter displayed the themes most talked about in real-time tweets. Justin Beiber was always trending. So the algorithm was modified to capture topics that experienced the greatest spike in tweets posted at the time, thus displacing Justin Beiber from his twitter trend throne. People like me who have no interest in Justin Beiber heaved a huge sigh of relief. The side-effect was that the change made twitter quite adept at capturing “breaking news”. Trending topics have now become the “live” pulse of human society in a very real sense.

The unforgiving, perfect memory of the internet has enabled researchers and interested others to collect data on what the societal collective does on the internet. In that sense, twitter is not revolutionary. ‘Youtube’ views have often been used to analyse societal characteristics. Based on the popularity of videos such as “Charlie bit my finger – again!” and the Miss South Carolina slip-up in Miss Teen USA 2007, plenty of uncomplimentary conclusions result about the nature and interests of “the masses”. It appears that we like to watch singing cats, feisty babies, A LOT of Justin Beiber and Lady Gaga music videos and Miss South Carolina make a fool of herself publicly. Twitter trending topics, however, reveal a different picture. A picture that gives one hope that society is not as one-dimensional and inane!

 Over the past two years the top 50 twitter trends look like this-

Image - tweetstats.com

Besides the obvious conclusion that we like discussing Justin Beiber a lot more than Lady Gaga, whatever ‘Youtube’ video views say, there are a lot of other interesting things to note.

• 1.    It confirms the suspicion that we are a music-obsessed society. “#nowplaying” trended for three months out of twenty four. Apparently Steve Jobs hit the nail on the head with the iPod and iTunes. And of course, the word replacing ‘common’ in the English dictionary – ‘iPhone’.
• 2.    .We are not apathetic towards politics. Just as long as it relates to the United States in one way or another.
• 3.   . Festivals are important to us. Tweeting as a fixture to celebrate festivals will henceforth be regarded as a tradition, to be handed down from one generation to the next.
• 4.    Movies are more captivating than sports. Movies based on books are more discussion-worthy than movies not based on books.
• 5.   After watching “Inception”, we’re yet to figure out whether we’re dreaming or not. We also have no real idea what happened to Dom Cobb. The search for answers still continues as does the trending of Inception.

On a more serious note, this top 50 list shows us that we’re *involved* as a society. Global epidemics, conflicts and politics are all things we are interested in and talk about. We’re not just a bunch of airheads who like watching cats play with iPads and babies act like, well, babies. Phew.