Claud

An avid collector of your hopes and worries, a romantic at heart.

She thanks her fairies, for blessing her with people who know compassion down to an art.

For accepting her for who she is, who never fails to turn up,

in times of need as well as happiness, or just there for a loving hug.

I received an email this morning, announcing that I was rejected for 2 scholarships in NUS. Applying every semester since year two, and this being my final year, I thought I'll be able to have a good chance at it. However, I suppose NUS has its reasons for refusing my application.

It made me reconsider the assumptions that having a good grade in everything, is a necessary condition for a scholarship - after all as the word imply - scholarship is about scholastic achievements isn't it? Then in Singapore, scholastic achievements also means good in CCA, good in leadership…essentially being an all rounder.

In NUS, all rounder I am not, however I do have a dream and a goal to want to take part in research. In hopes of bringing some legitimacy to my abilities, I thought being awarded a scholarship will be good for my resume in the future. Ah, resume! That's it. Extending on the word 'resume', I asked what did I have to offer for my future employers, given how my friends who have already graduated are looking fretting on how 'good' their resume looks. I turned to my own profile on Facebook, think about the jobs I have under taken in the past, counted the number of tuition jobs I have accepted and see through and realised I do have some thing to show for. It's a good pacifier of one's ego I must admit, however it's also a good reality check because not everyone is good in everything in every way. While I get rejected for not fulfilling NUS's criteria, it doesn't mean I am a loser and have achieved nothing. The students I have taught all achieved A/B in their respective subjects in JC, I think I am relatively effective teacher.

Of course NUS doesn't have to take into account employment history simply because students are not expected to work unless during their holidays for internships. However the truth is that many students wor k for their livelihood, some even for their school fees and those that do, do not necessarily qualify for financial aid. I know of friends who are in the 'middle-class squeeze' where their parents can afford to pay for their school fees, but not for their daily living. As we know, being a young adult in the liminal period of working/studying, we are expected to find alternative sources of income to support our social activities. I simply cannot imagine my friends celebrating my birthday in anywhere else besides a restaurant just because I have no cash. Like what the government famously said, "do you want to eat at a coffee shop, a restaurant or at a food court?"

Therefore, I respect people who are able to balance work and school, social life and family life as well as do well enough in school while endless juggling all the obligations. Not to sound self-important, but I think I have to juggle a lot in my life, not as much as the under-privileged, but certainly much more than the average. Since a successful person to me, is one who is able to live life to the fullest, as well as still be able to juggle the demands of life,I expect every criteria of success in reality to be based on my beliefs. However, institutions have very different beliefs and they therefore, formulate their own criteria of what a successful student may be.

I am no longer bitter about not obtaining that scholarship despite trying so many times. I  also defend my stand against people who judge me and say that I am merely comforting myself. This is because there are different lives and we cannot be elitist and privilege those who are identified by institutions as successful. There are everyday heroes too, they are our mothers, our fathers and our friends who have to cope with demands beyond themselves at their age. If we are to escape from the narrowly defined criteria of success, we have to examine what it means to marginalise many other more intelligences. 


Shoving people in boxes of catagorises and labelling them as such, is difficult to then appreciate the nuances of individual's capability and values. What of resilience and what of passion? How do you measure such intangible qualities? Should we measure them at all? Scholarship applications sometimes befuddle me by the questions they ask - using indicators to show that you're passionate or proficient in certain areas. This just pushes me towards qualitative studies, that people ought to be humanised, and not categorised.