(Inspired by Mark and Daryl’s posts)
Once upon a time, when the giants NTU and NUS ruled the Singaporean university scene, a little known kid called SMU appeared from nowhere, and said,
“Ahem.”
NTU and NUS turned their noses up and ignored the newcomer, and it was easy for them to do so, because everyone else wasn’t paying any attention to little SMU either, so young and inexperienced as he was.
But SMU was undeterred. He felt that the old system needed to be changed: lecture halls filled with hundreds of students fervently copying notes as fast as the professor could utter them, lack of interaction between students and professors, a lacklustre environment where most students felt nameless, faceless, soul-less…
So he called for an era of change.
“No more crowded lecture halls, but small class sizes where students get to interact with professors!”
“We interview each and every applicant to see if he can fit into the culture, because grades aren’t everything!”
“We don’t want to reward mere memorisation of facts, let’s include group projects and class participation!”
“SMU. Because we’re different!”
It was indeed, at the time, revolutionary. It was a wonderful message indeed.
Unfortunately, not everyone was ready for such a message. Society wasn’t ready for such a message.
Thus, most people viewed those who went to SMU as rejects of NUS and NTU, or worse, mavericks who were taking a silly risk.
But the mavericks, they didn’t care what society thought. They knew that they had something special, and in fact they held a particular pride in bucking the trend, a veritable “screw you” to the naysayers.
Skip ahead a couple of years, and the world suddenly changed. Suddenly graduates from SMU looked real impressive. They were smart, they were confident, they were great communicators and most important of all, they were hired. They were indeed different.
Now, public opinion is truly a funny thing. Suddenly, the little nobody SMU became the young upstart everyone was talking about, and NUS and NTU started feeling hot under their collars a little bit. Soon, they too were talking about being “multi-disciplinary”, “broad-based” and “interactive”.
And when applications for universities opened once again, SMU found itself inundated with applications, and by the best and the brightest, no less.
Soon enough, as these things do, things started to change.
The grade criteria for entry into the different schools suddenly became way higher than ever, and took more precedence.
Class participation became a dirty word, and everybody knew (and hated) that guy who “talked for the sake of talking”.
Competition between students became the norm. Everybody tried to top each other in everything, and the dreaded “bell curve” made things even worse.
The library became a second home to most students, “break week” was a misnomer, and going to school on a Sunday became the norm.
And the school suddenly became way.too.crowded.
Suddenly, “being different” started looking like exactly the same.
——————————————————————————–
To answer the question I posted in the title of this post, yes, I do believe SMU has become a victim of its own success. There was a time I was truly proud of being from SMU. These days…not so much. Sure it’s a business school, but the level at which the rat race has crept into university life is truly something a lot of us find hard to believe. Some say it’s because of the city campus, some say it’s the marketing, some just say… hard luck, that’s the way the cookie crumbles.
Call me idealistic, but I think SMU had something special in the beginning, and somewhere along the way, it lost the plot somewhat. I think I’ve been luckier than some in that I got to do something I truly believe in, something beyond getting the perfect grades, and I truly hope that everybody gets to experience this in some form or another. Life is not all about that perfect presentation, that A+ that you spent all your time in the library for, or that ungraded presentation that for some reason became yet another game of one-upmanship.
Don’t get me wrong, I know some of the most talented and intelligent individuals in this school, but most of us agree that things just aren’t the same anymore.
SMU, revisit your ideals once more. Then ask yourself, am I shortchanging those that believed in me from the start? If the answer is yes, then let’s change the situation. It isn’t too late.
That’s a really good point. You notice we haven’t used the “different” line for at least the last two years? Maybe the school knows we’re not anymore. I remember when I first joined in yr 1 there were all these discussions among students (yr 1 – yr 4) whether we really are different, and now that discussion doesn’t even come up anymore.
When you grow big, you just become another NTU/NUS I guess.
[…] questions today if SMU is a victim of our own success. In a lot of ways, I say yes. We started out as the kid who was different, but is quickly growing […]
i really enjoy reading these posts about the difference in culture, then and now. i hope you guys can actually help an instituition find its soul again -)
Yeah… “How SMU got its groove back”, haha.
Well, we seniors try our best to impart the real SMU culture to the young’ens, hopefully the rest of the school picks it up and runs with it…It’ll be a real shame if the SMU culture (what’s left of it) dies with my batch (the last batch that experienced life at the Bukit Timah campus).
Then again, I wonder if it’s a case of change being the only constant? The idealist in me really hopes that that’s not the case..
[…] sin book « How studying led to porn A Success Victim? April 16, 2008 SMU: Victim of its own success? […]
Haha~! Too true!
Actually, the pattern is unavoidable : the product of competition.
But then again, how do you differentiate and define “different” and “competitive” , in SMU (personally, I’m from NUS), I always thought that being different in you guys is because you are extra competitive considering the cohort is smaller and all. I have never seen it as a mutually exclusive issue.
I’m not trying to bitch or anything. I’m just wondering, what is the “difference” that SMU had in the beginning if it ain’t supreme competition ?
hey nab! 🙂 *wave*
i wholeheartedly agree with u regarding the state of SMU. it is a point of much sadness to me – i greatly treasured the experience of this school up to the point where it became soulless and elitist (when it comes to grades).
to answer ambrose’s question, i think that SMU’s difference then was – well, everything. the pedagogy, the way we were taught, the type of students they took in….. way back in the 1st batch of SMU, i was told (by seniors who were there to witness it) that every single student was a true character. they may have had the shittiest grades that NTU / NUS wouldn’t take ’em, but the SMU population was colorful and vibrant. And the part, to me, that made SMU stand out was – it took these youths that other universities turned their noses up to, and shaped them like diamonds in the rough, to become the dynamic, outspoken, intelligent people they already were inside.
I’d like to think that’s what made SMU unique in the beginning. We believed that potential was something that could be dormant, and just needed a bit more tugging. Now, we want potential to be right there, on the surface – or we ain’t takin’ ’em.
Z: Hello!! I like what you said about potential and understanding that the best could be brought out of people. Well-said!
Ambrose: I think there’s a difference between competition between universities, and competition between students. As SMU becomes bigger, competition for the best students with NTU and NUS becomes more heated up. But the problem is, SMU needn’t resort to just looking at grades, or making grades such a big thing because it simply sends a wrong message to the students. Friendly competition is one thing, but if people are trying to one-up each other even for presentations that aren’t being graded, then I do think something isn’t quite right.
I don’t know if it’s just a case of SMU being a victim of it’s success – I think it’s also a victim of Singapore’s, though I could argue what drives that is more a fear of falling back to what it once was than any desire to truly make the World a better place.
However what is happening is a tragedy – not just for SMU and Singapore – but the next gen of student because at this rate, the only choice they’ll have for advanced knowledge will be which 3 letters they prefer on the building they walk into each day.
Great post …
hi nab! glad to chance upon your posting. the views that appear to have been emanating from your post, really does resonate with what i view. as much as i’ll only be studying acc at smu only come aug, i’ve come to learn of the culture and trends in smu… interestingly, i was actually attracted to smu’s selling point since inception – you needn’t be all grades to be in smu. that’s how the individuality and hence diversity is being brought about, correct me if im wrong?
then over the past 2 years while i was serving my NS, my female friends at smu would actually update me with how smu has actually evolved. having learnt that admissions cut-off have been increasing by the year, perfect a lvls graders are being offered scholarships w/o the need of interviews and SOA’s dean list being as long as a toilet paper… doesn’t sound as consistent as what i hope it would be. so eventually, smu’ll be only a uni that thrives on competition yet again?
nevertheless, i’ll still be looking fwd to an education at smu. i’ll like to believe that admist the paper chase, we should have enough time to stop and smell the roses. hopefully, this belief of mine will stand at least for the next 4 years to come.
[…] the glossy Russell Wong photographs in our posters, beyond the cliché about how ‘different’ we are, touched my life in some way — by how different they turned out to be. Without ever having to […]
Actually, SMU is not that “different” from the beginning. SMU has only been more vocal.
“Small class sizes” is just a redefinition of what a “lecture” is. SMU back then did not have the resources to mount large lectures, space contraints too. So we named “tutorials” as “lectures” and made it look like we had small class size. In truth, NUS and NTU tutorial classes have smaller class sizes.
“Class participation” actually was there in NUS TDP, now known as USP. It is a liberal arts programme which requires lots of class participation, and even design your own modules. We just vocalise what they have nudged below too much information.
NUS and NTU each has about 200 student groups each. SMU has yet to muster that number even now. And we’re trying to make some ranking soon. So the world will know us somehow. The other 2 already have their degrees know and brand established outside Singapore and small little ASEAN.
After all these years, I do feel bad. Which is why I am confessing.
No. SMU was never “different”. We just screamed louder. Because we were more afraid.
[…] Posts SMU students, what do you think?SMU: Victim of its own success?Dying/Is an art, like everything elseConfessions of a frujchaholicAbout […]