As mentioned previously, the speaker at the talk in my recent ITE visit tried to convince us that the ITE is moving towards to be a world class technical institute (just like NUS tried to convince people that they are a world class university.) It seems that Singapore leaders like to chase after all the "No. 1"s in the world, hopefully they do not forget that their first and foremost objective is to provide quality education and not to become world class (by wasting resources unnecessarily etc). Anyway, I don't think a world class institute will walk around telling people that they are one.

Singaporeans like statistics, because it is something quantifiable. Just like megapixels for cameras and horsepower for cars. Therefore what better way is there to convince the rest that our ITEs are moving towards a global reputation than statistics. So we were presented with this two pieces of gem that highlight the achievements of ITE.


Percentage of people having a positive image of ITE over the years.

This slide shows that for the past 8 years, people's image of the ITE had been improving. On the surface it seemed so but what happened to the other 50% of the people who thought badly of ITE? Surely you can't be worldclass if 50% of the people surveyed did not think highly of your institute? More over, I had problems getting the "aggregate" score at the bottom. For example, in 1997, the aggregate % is the same as the employer's while the public and parent's opinion are lower. So how do you get an aggregate that reflects the employer's opinion for 1997? What sort of equations went in for computation of the scores shown?


Post graduate survey for ITE grads.

I must say that the survey seems encouraging to know that 13% of ITE grad ended up with a degree/professional qualification in life and a third of them obtained a diploma within 5 years. But this statistics raises several questions in my mind when I looked at them again at home. Firstly, did the fresh grad category included guys who had to go for 2 years of NS upon graduation? If fresh grads exclude guys then that will explain part of the salary difference. But I will take their survey results in good faith that they did a good job.

Secondly, was the huge difference in pay due to the fact that more than a third of graduates obtained a higher qualification? How could you include these graduates in the computation of salary increase since they moved on to higher qualifications and would naturally command a greater pay? I could use the same strategy to prove that studying in Bukit Bollocks Secondary School (BBSS) means you get better paid in the future. Fresh grad from BBSS get only $1,000 average. 50% obtained a diploma and 20% a degree after 10 years, and their average pay is $2,500, or 250% of their "starting" pay. So BBSS is a world class secondary school. You get the idea?

Why didn't they do a 10 year survey in 2005? The 2002 figures were quoted instead for that category? And by the way, the unemployment rate in 2005 was 3.4% according to Singapore statistics. For both fresh graduates and those who graduated 5 years ago, their unemployment rate were both about 2 to 3 times higher than the national average. Does that reflect well on ITE?

Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. ~Aaron Levenstein