Well, certainly SMU was looking for a different style of student. And in a way that’s pretty well reflected in the marketing, the image programme of the jumping student. The way in which we sought that out, that cultural characteristic out, was through interview. And I think that’s been one of the other major elements, major points of difference, in Singapore, from what we tended to see in the other universities. When SMU was being established, I remembered Tony Tan saying that he wants SMU to be the beachhead for change in higher education. If you can do it at SMU and show it can be done, then the other universities will come along. There are a number of instances where you can point to the extent to which we have been flattered by imitation. The beachhead of change is really working.
It’s a very tricky and delicate issue, but SMU has stayed with the proposition that yes, grades are important, so therefore we can’t come below a certain level. But we are prepared to say to some of the very top performing students in terms of their A-levels, “Sorry, but this is not the place for you,” because they don’t present the other qualities that SMU is looking for. It’s hard to sustain, because you get the criticism from the parents, in particular, of the students who are really strong academic performers and who miss out. But the other thing that it does is that, in a world where universities start to compare admission cut-off scores, we are in a way shooting ourselves in the foot, because we are accepting that the admission score will come down because some of the very best students we didn’t bring in. But of course, even though the admission score comes down, given the competitiveness for strong university positions, that admission score is still much greater, the cut-off is much higher than the minimum that’s really needed to perform, to undertake that course.
For example, in Australia, we use a single scale, 0 in effect to a 100. You’ve got to get 99.9 for admission into medicine. But you can certainly, but if you came down, it’s established as low as 93, and admitted those. If you took every student above 93 and drew the names out of the hat for the number you need, they would still get the same number of high distinctions, distinctions and credits as the ones that come in at 99.9. This is the point I’m making, that there is a natural level of the natural floor above which all students will do just as well, by in large, by the time they finish their degree. I think SMU recognises that implicitly and is prepared to pay much greater attention to the other qualities that will give student life a buzz, a certain lift in the mood. And it will pay the university back in great amounts when twenty, thirty years out, I have no doubt. So the Academic Affairs Committee, working with the deans, identified that as the approach we wanted to take for student admissions.
Diversity means many different things. I actually do not know whether they're sufficiently diverse. I haven't seen the metrics. I mean, in terms of gender diversity is quite straightforward. In terms of ethnic diversity. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I hope we are more diverse. Ethnically Singaporean, ethnic, ethnically, in terms of foreigners there is a sort of informal quota. So we can't do much about that. In terms of diversity of students, socioeconomic background, I don't know. It's a good question. Because one of the biggest problems, as you know, over Singapore generally, is that more and more you're getting what I would call entrenched meritocracy, which I've spoken about, I've written about that you're no longer getting dynamic meritocracy. Singapore still very meritocratic. Meaning you cannot buy your way into anything. You can't buy your way into university. But are we more and more entrenched? Are we more of a stratified, meritorious. To the extent that studies have shown that compared to before, more and more children who go to university of parents who have gone to university. Now, no doubt that's a function that more and more Singaporeans are graduates also. So, you would get more and more who are coming from university. But more and more are also coming. I just don't know the answer to that. And I think it's actually worth a study to see if you look at different indices of diversity beyond the simple ones of race and gender, were we more diverse before, and are we diverse enough now, what other kinds of diversity do you want to get? I think it's a good question.
The first thing which I mentioned earlier was, we decided upon, after consultation with the students’ association, a fixed fee arrangement so that when a first-year student enters he or she knows what the fees will be for the whole time for the degree. So there are no changes while a student.
The second thing was to develop a comprehensive financial assistance plan that would be available to all students who had any kind of financial need. We have some students who win scholarships competitively and those are often generous, they’re usually endowed by some endowment. And those students are well taken care of. But there are many, many other students who will either have continuing needs, or short-term needs, or perhaps need some assistance in going overseas for a study term or some other programme. And what we try to do is make it easy for people to gain access to these kinds of funds by giving out a lot of information to both students and parents about their availability, whether they’re loans or student jobs in the university—students work as research assistants, teaching assistants, library assistants and so forth—or whether they’re straightforward bursaries. We also have some scholarships which are purely merit-based and some which are merit-plus-need. And I think there’s plenty of room to develop in Singapore something that’s done more commonly in some other places where there may be a prestigious scholarship or something, but the amount of it is based somewhat on the need. So a student may have the honour of being called the XYZ scholar and put that on his CV [Curriculum Vitae] and so forth and so on, but if he comes from a very wealthy family, the stipend might be quite small, whereas another student who comes from a family of very modest means might get a larger stipend as part of it, rather than the same for everybody.
Low Aik Meng, who is dean of students, was in charge of developing these programmes, and together with Alan Goh, the director of admissions, they did something about five years ago now which was incredibly effective. This was when there was a lot of publicity going on about fees for universities, and SMU’s more expensive than NUS and NTU. So in one of the regular ads that Alan puts in the newspaper and other places during the admissions season, he put a straightforward statement about financial aid, and how to do it, how to get it, what it’s for—step one, two, three, four, and here we can make this available to you. Nothing complicated, no barriers. And he also sent a letter with all that information to the parents of all applicants and potential applicants. And it was very effective because it just gave people a little blueprint about the options which are available. And in fact we can safely say that no student has been prevented from getting an SMU education by reason of financial need. We try to reach out when we’ve known and somebody hasn’t asked, we’ve gone to them and tried to do things for them.
We also introduced the concept of interviewing all applicants above a certain level, certain cut-off level. Every spring there are literally thousands of interviews—conducted by faculty and deans and assistant deans, and in some instances students and alumni and sometimes trustees—of applicants and that interview counts for 20 percent. The students also have to write an essay which is done at the time of the interview. Not separately and not at home and not with any assistance, but just at the time of the interview. And that’s a significant factor in the decision as well. So we look at the whole person because what we want to do is attract people who are intellectually curious and who are going to change the world when they get out. Now, not everybody will, but we hope enough will.
What SMU has looked for from the beginning is something more than just the grades. Now obviously there has to be some recognition of how a student has performed either in JC or in a poly or in an IB [International Baccalaureate] programme or somewhere else before gaining admission. But we also look at how a student has developed his or her life, what other things interest the student, what co-curricular activities has the student been involved in, not just a member of eighteen different clubs, but has a student done something serious with one of them, been a leader, come up with a new programme, been a star athlete, something of that sort.
I was very involved in creating the whole process where we tried to, you know, before this and now all that years have changed but the previously it was like cut off points, right on your A levels. Well as your cut-off point, you get 253, you go to a university you get 254 you didn’t go to university. It's the most stupid thing in the world. It is completely non holistic. It measures, only, doesn't even measure academic ability. It measures academic performance on the day of the exam. And that's all. I've had enough cases where I had a bad time on the day of my exam, I didn't do well and I didn't score well. So it's not even a measure of academic abilities, it’s a measure of performance on that day. So it's a very poor indicator for admissions to anything. So and yet you can’t throw it out the window. And how many A's you get and this and that you can't throw it out the window. So, we tried to basically bring in an interview process. In the beginning, the interviews were one-on-one. And we tried to ask lots of interesting off-the-wall issues and questions. I remember one question very well, that you would have a student there, with a bunch of professors there. And the student would be thinking to be asked questions about maths and science and so on. And somebody would say, why is the sky blue? It's not a, it's a bit of a trick question just to see how you respond. Not whether you know, geophysics, whatever it is. It's to ascertain the personality of the individual. And then of course, we will look at other things like ECA or how well you do in sports. I have long believed that sports is an important indicator, not because of their ability, but because not whether you scored high in sports, but they do participate in team sports or not. Would indicate whether you are a person who is sociable, who enjoys working with people and so on. So, we tried to develop different metrics for assessing an individual, and it's never perfect, and it doesn't mean it's at the sacrifice or it is sacrificing academic quality, because I think that the statistics show that every year our intake in terms of pure measurement of academic ability is still very high. But we also get people who are more than just high achievers academically, they have other interests in life, and that was very important because you talk about the output of SMU, which were the students which became well-known and even now well-known for being more articulate, more problem-solving, more questioning of things. It's partly because of the pedagogy we have, but it's also because the input of students were already slightly different from the rest. So, it is self-selecting the students who want to be more articulate, to want to be more sociable, more want to take more initiative. They are the students that we managed to get from the interview process.
We have the enormous advantage of being a city campus, being here in the centre of the city and thus being a visible presence of an academic institution. Visible for everybody, everybody knows the buildings of SMU at the end of Orchard Road. Perhaps we haven’t really exploited and leveraged that position as well as we could, in terms of having impact on the business community. We are a university for the world of business. We’re not a business school—we’re a university, but for the world of business with the different components that I referred to a little bit earlier. We can make a difference in the way people manage, whether it’s in business, whether it’s in government, whether it’s in NGOs. For example, in NGOs, what the Lien Centre is doing is very important, in my opinion, in trying to influence the quality and the professionalism of management in NGOs. And I hope that in the long term we will be successful in influencing them.
My first point about society and SMU is that we need to take our research and see how relevant that is to businesses and see how we can influence the way they think and they work. That’s not going to happen automatically. We need to make a serious effort in communicating that. And that’s one of the reasons why I come back to that—we haven’t probably leveraged our closeness to business or to government or to some other organisations here around us, that we haven’t completely fully leveraged that to influence them, to communicate what we’re doing in terms of research. We also need to use much more social media to communicate the results of our research. And not only from the faculty but also some of the great ideas that some of the students have. I’ve seen some student papers that I was really very impressed with and I thought—we need to make sure that this is known by the community around us. So that’s the first point, that is, communicate better through our physical presence, but also through social media and anything else that can help us communicate better, the results of our insights of our research.
The second way that we relate to society is through our students’ and staff’s and faculty’s community service. As we all know, our students are required to do eighty hours of community service but many of them do a lot more. And we celebrated in September a million hours of community service, which is when you think about it, impressive as a university, a small university. But I would hope that through that community service and what students learn there, they get an attitude of helping the communities in which they work for the rest of their life, so that we can educate our students in continuing their education, so that they feel that as citizens they have a responsibility to the society in which they work and have to give back to the community. And this goes beyond our students. It’s faculty, staff, but also our alumni. And I would be very happy and I see that some of that is already, happening, where alumni and the students are working together on some of these community service projects. So I hope that, that again is something where we can influence society.
And the third one is something about the holistic experience that we provide to our students. Our educational system is one where we provide a holistic experience to the students, where we tell them, yes, you’re studying accounting or you’re studying business or information systems or law, or whatever you’re studying that—but then at the same time you should understand what’s going on, a little bit of what in the other schools is going on. You should understand how your domain fits in the broader world of business. And at the same time we stimulate our students to participate in the CCAs [co-curricular activities], do some cultural work or some sports or whatever. So we provide a holistic experience. I would hope that students go away from here and keep that holistic attitude and that I think that will have an influence on society, that society is not a collection of a bunch of silos but society’s about interaction, integration. And I would hope that one of the ways SMU can influence society is through our alumni who will keep that attitude of thinking broadly, thinking in an integrated way and perhaps influencing the way their colleagues and their organisations in their communities in which they work.
The idea of a student gift, that people collect money and give to the university, that’s all started [by the students]. I’m saying this to you because I think there’s a philosophy behind it. My meeting with student alumni and asking the student alumni to start new things, because eventually there will be a big alumni club and you must start it. All along the way we’re having students starting new traditions, keenly aware of them because they will take root. And it’s good because even after only ten years now I meet new students today, and they’ll say, “Oh, those oldies, they did it that way so we’re...” You know, there’s already a sense, ten years is a long span for a young person. So that’s as far as students are concerned.
I keep in touch with alumni, because I think they are—in fact about six or seven of the old alumni see me every year. They get me to give my views about their careers. I’m kind of like an uncle. “Is it good for you to change this job? Is it not good for you to change this job?” Young people need guidance, so I keep up with them. I listen to pitches by SMU students who want to start a new business. So it’s my way of, for me, it’s useful. For them I guess it’s useful that they have mentors around. For me it’s useful because it’s one of the ways I try to keep tabs of how young people are thinking, how SMU students are thinking. Of course I always ask them about complaints and this and that and so on.
It’s a new university, and so there were no societies, no groups of any sort. And we have very little money to start some of these societies with. But we have very enterprising students who form their groups. They will come and through Professor Low Aik Meng, ask for permission to form clubs. And the answer will always be a yes, provided they don’t ask us for too much money. So that’s how they got started.
There were clubs of all sorts. I remember asking some of them, why don’t they merge. There was a group that wanted to form to play chess. There was another group that wanted to form because they wanted to play Chinese chess. Of these groups that formed, they were all students led. Some of them were rather successful, and some of them are still running today. There was also a very different attitude among the students. I give you an example. One day a group of students came to me and said, “You know Kai Chong, the food here is not very good,” he used stronger language than that. “Can we do something about it?” When he said we that means the students want to do something about it. Quite unlike other places where, you are the dean, “Why don’t you go and do something about our food?” So obviously you have a very different group of students. And so what the students did was, to take orders, drove out, pack the food and bring it back. And it’s deliberate. When they say that we will charge 50 cents more upfront and many of us were very happy to give him the 50 cents, because he would use the money for something else, but because he was running some other club. And they are very enterprising young people.
So I think the public reaction has been good. I must say that, and after the second, third batch we never have problems anymore.
They knew. We showed we delivered. I keep saying we must deliver, we must deliver. I know it’s all fun here. Exam, exam is no fun. Take away the exam, fun, the exam part of it. Fun. We can have fun and study at the same time, “Why must you make education so miserable?” Let’s enjoy it, that has always been my motto, let’s enjoy it. A lot of kids enjoy it.
One of the things that I find very valuable is the fact that a lot of our faculty have developed a very close bond with our students and so, as a result of that, the students also in turn develop a very close bond with the university. And if we build on that and also the fact that we take a lot of effort to make sure that we give our students a holistic experience—you can have seminar-style, you can have class participation and so on—but it’s the total experience in the university that the students take away with them.
And if we make sure that we maintain that and when our students leave the university, they feel that we have truly value add to them, then I’m not so worried about the fact that the other universities will catch up with us. They can catch up with us in terms of some of the methodology and so on, but what is personal is the relationship that the students build with the university and with the faculty. And of course, we have to continue to innovate. Every so many years, we have to sit down and relook what we have done, we have to relook our curriculum to see, “Are we still relevant? Are there areas we need to change?” and if we continue to innovate, then I think we should be able to stay maybe one step ahead of our competitors, maybe not three steps like we had before but at least, always one step ahead of our competitors. Then I think we’ll be all right.
The other thing I noticed very soon, very early on, was that students who would be these bashful, shy, innocent ones coming in, within about three, four months were talkative, questioning, engaged, involved, not all of them, but most of them. And that had to reflect to some extent the experience they were having in the classroom. This is not a situation where you can put off your homework to the end of the term, or just write a paper, or just study for some big exam. You’ve got to be prepared everyday that you go to class, which is more like going to work. When you go to work you don’t get to put it off for three months and just read a magazine while you’re at work. And having to speak in class, having to be responsive, having to be engaged, having to do these group projects and so forth, really does make a difference in the maturation of eighteen-, nineteen- and twenty-year-olds. And it’s amazing to see how they blossom. These flowers here are fake [refers to artificial flowers in the recording studio], I know that, but in a real amaryllis, you can see, you can almost see it blossom over a short period of time, and that’s what you see with the students who come in and experience this kind of intense exposure.
And there’s a lot of experiential learning that goes on. It may vary from subject to subject but there’s still a lot of that. I also think that there are two components to undergraduate education here that have proven themselves to be really important. One is the internship, the other is the community service project. In an internship—whether they get paid, whether they don’t—at least they operate within an office or a structured business environment for some period of time. Very few late adolescents have had that experience. And much better that you have it when you’re a student than when you just go to work. Those little things like learning office protocol, or learning how, what the rules are within an organisation, and how you function and all that, terrifically important.
We wanted students to be participative in class because we wanted to groom a group of students that will stand out when they graduate. We made a very deliberate decision that the students coming to SMU may be not much different in terms of their schooling, but when they get out, they must be very different. So in our selection process, we interviewed every student. So if you came to an interview, if you just kept quiet, chances are we will not have that student. So it’s a selection process, we decided to put students together. We also know that if a group of people who know each other for a while, and if they sit in class, they will be naturally noisier, because you’re comfortable with. So what we did was before term started, we have teambuilding with the students. The first group, the pioneering batch, the faculty went with the students to do the teambuilding. Subsequent batches we send them to Outward Bound School in Pulau Ubin. So once you get to know each other there, in class they will naturally be noisier, you know choose to speak. But what we also very deliberately did was that when we go for all of these team buildings, the teams, we kept them intact. We put two or three of this team into a class.
The students were rather enthusiastic and so and then, and one week before the exams, nearly died of heart attack, because they’re obviously not studying. And I was walking around telling the students, please study, you know, we do kick you out if you don’t do well. Their view is that, no it’s an American system; no one fails in the US system. I said, no we do kick people out, this is still Singapore. And as a result of which, after the first semester, I remember having an emergency meeting in the Tanglin Community Club in the backroom with now judge of the appeals, Andrew Pang, Phang Sock Yong and a few other senior faculty about the results. We had one third of our students, a hundred plus of them, with a GPA of below two. That was term one.
Yes...that was term one. We could’ve, obviously, moderate the grades such that more of them would pass but we decided against it, because that would not be a true reflection of, not the abilities, but the efforts. With that in mind, we also made the rule, there and then, in that basement, that three strikes and you’re out. And that’s how that rule came about. That they allowed three terms with GPA of three and below, and thereafter, we’ll have to ask them to leave.
They were always a very good bunch of people to be with, they’re extremely open. We also did something that the other university did not succeed in doing, which is to have an open dialogue with the students every time. You will notice that none of SMU students write letters to the press to complain about SMU. Not yet. The rule then was, if we have a problem, let’s discuss it, and let’s solve them together.
The school was small, for goodness sakes, and students were all around. We had spaces where they would work—I was always a believer that…there should be space around for students to use, that…you know it’s a little noisy, chaotic, this, that, but that’s what the university is for—it’s to have places for students to do their thing. That time we only had undergraduates. So students would be around all the time, and they’d be talking to us all the time, and they’d be commenting, and observing, and complaining, and all the wonderful things that are just what you want students to do.
One student walked in once, year 1, year 2, something like that. It was great. He said, “We shouldn’t have classes, let’s do away with classes. You should give us assignments, and then just for each assignment teach us what we need to know. What are we wasting our time in classes for?” You know he’s not entirely wrong, actually, so you couldn’t just dismiss it out of hand. There are some reasons why it’s nice to have classes to—from people like to do things in groups and not just to do things alone, to you’re able to plan, you can give people some foundations and whatnot—so we did not throw the whole curriculum out with the bathwater. But students had ideas, and it’s like, “Oh, you got an idea? Go do it!” And there’re various ways to improve labs, to improve this, to improve that, to form special interest groups, to get people involved in stuff. So the issue is, we need help. You have an observation, something’s wrong, go take it. And students responded well to that.
SMU is a research-intensive university. We believe that the best education is grounded in up-to-date, cutting-edge research. The two go hand in hand. PhD students and postdoctoral fellows constitute an important part of our knowledge enterprise and learning ecosystem.
At the same time, I should also mention the increasing importance of professional postgraduate programmes.
As I alluded to earlier, the nature of work is changing rapidly. Future workers will need to be highly resilient. For that reason, we are establishing the Resilient Workforces Institute. I believe we will increasingly welcome more students and graduates back to the University to pursue professional postgraduate programmes, particularly among our alumni.
I think SMU has done very well in engaging our alumni. However, as our alumni community continues to grow, further efforts will be necessary. I have always believed that all great universities in the world, without exception, are characterized by having a strong and engaged alumni community.
What do we hope to see when alumni return to their alma mater? Our alumni can offer tremendous support to our students and graduates.
For example, when an SMU alumnus who is now an employer interviews an applicant who is also an SMU graduate, there is already a level of confidence in the quality of that candidate. The employer knows that the applicant has received a rigorous education, completed meaningful internships, and gained international exposure—just as they did when they were students themselves.
The alumni network and the connections it fosters can be a powerful source of support for the entire SMU community.
My advice to students is simple: stay curious, put in the effort, and the sky is the limit.
After year one, we received an invitation to participate in a case competition organised by NUS. Typically we would send year three and year four to a case competition because these students would have gone through most of the programme and would have probably have done strategy. You must remember we only finish year one. I was asked to send a team. So we trained a team and send that team to NUS. And that team emerged champion, beating year three and year four, from NUS and NTU. We also had another success one semester later. We send another team to Copenhagen. Another team, not the same team.
Not the same student. We beat I think, 11 other international teams in Copenhagen to emerge champion. The strategy there is the same. All we did was tell the students, “Go there, please don’t be last.” Because the case competition is a mere game. If you succeed at the case competition does not mean that you will succeed in life. Winning is fine, not winning is okay. Go out there and make friends. And that’s the reason why we do not send the same team twice. We want to expose this experience to as many students as possible.
There was a considerable amount of push back from current students and concern from the admissions office in particular about prospective students and how this would play in the heartlands and everywhere. And without going through all the details, I’ll say that this was an instance in which student government in particular was extremely important. There were some leaders of the student association who were very mature, thoughtful, young men and women. Ford Lai was then the president of student government and there were several others involved. And they came forward with two or three proposals about the way this could be implemented over some period of time that would not be so disruptive. And they were very good ones, and they were consistent; one of them was consistent with what we’d done at Emory, which was to have a flat tuition for an entering class. So if you came in the first year and your fees were X dollars, they would be X the whole time you were a student. For the ones who came after, they might be X plus N but you knew exactly what it was going to be.
And what we did was in a sense grandfather in existing students, and then implement the 15 percent increase in stages over time, and also introduce the flat fee notion so that a freshman would know my fees are four times X and that’s not going to change. That’s remained constant over time. And we really can credit the students’ association for being deeply involved in that, and it established as a result what has since turned in to be an excellent working relationship between the students’ association and the administration through successive student leaders. So it was very positive in the long run, [although] it was a little painful at the time.
