"What Is" Series- What is Intelligence?

This is probably the last of my “What is” series of posts. This post is written by the recommendation of De Maitre, who wants me to take on the questions created by the Intellectual Snob saga (refer to post, The Veneer of Legitimacy in Varsity Elitism, and the response).

Let’s once again recap what Intellectual Snob (Int Snob) had to say about locals and local universities.

“Frogs”. That’s referring to the students.
Couldn’t stand the culture of “stupidity” in the local universities.
That only people with good family backgrounds could possibly afford education overseas, the rest relying on scholarships of varying prestige, and the people without scholarships stuck in the so-called “frog schools”


So, what is intelligence?

Actually, to some extent I sympathized with Int Snob. I had a horrible experience in class, where I had to work with someone who is not “stupid” per se, but try too hard to be intelligent. Throwing in jargon; utilizing complex philosophical ideas, without paying attention to the relevance to the lesson or the course in general.

Like I said, one can be articulate without being intelligent, and be intelligent without being articulate. Eloquence is not the only, nor the most accurate assessment of intelligence.

Take for example politicians. I have no doubts about the ability of Singapore’s political leaders, but in other countries, it’s a very different story. Politicians are eloquent, but they do not necessary deliver, nor do they necessarily understand the complexities of the issues they are dealing with.

Of course, you can credit this to partisan politics, but my point is, eloquence without the ability to deliver is hardly intelligent.

To explore the issue a little deeper, just what is the kind of stupidity was Int Snob talking about? People who are “irrelevant”, like the experience I had above, was one, students who aren’t “creative” probably the other.

What is the problem? That Singapore students suffer from intellectual bulimia? That Singapore students only learn through rote learning?

True perhaps, but it will not be accurate to blame the problem on the varsity system of Singapore. We are all products of the JC system, so if there was anything to blame, the JC system should be blamed instead.

So is there anything of the JC system to blame?

It ultimately depends on your teacher. JC is still a teacher-centric level of education, unlike university, where independent learning and lecturers as facilitators are emphasized instead. So the teacher’s ability to teach, and the teacher’s approach to teaching determines the kind of education one gets out of JC.

I had two History teachers in JC (both of them were good, so there is no debate about ability here!).

One took the varsity approach towards teaching, emphasizing independent learning, and creative understanding of issues. I remember my friends complaining that he “didn’t quite teach”, but I always reply, “That’s what you get in uni.”

The other took a structured approach to teaching, teaching using a structured and organized method, and emphasizing coverage of arguments and exam skills. The same friends who complained about the previous teacher were obviously happy with this one.

Actually, there was value in both teachers. The former taught me to be independent, and to be creative. The latter taught me valuable thinking skills, and taught me how to plan in studies.

So to say that the JC system was flawed is inaccurate at best, erroneous at worst.

This is because the value in learning comes from what is derived from the learning experience.

The real trouble with the JC system is that we learn using the lecture-tutorial system as our framework, but still sit for just one written paper (the A Levels) at the end of the course. The emphasis is thus diverted to scoring for the A levels, sacrificing the exposure of academic culture in varsity education.

In addition, Int Snob’s comments about the Singapore high-school / JC system kind of exposes a lack of travelling, or at least reading.

If Singapore’s education system was bad, what about other countries?

Just read my previous posts (On Exams and Moral Character, and Some Horror Stories) to find out more about high school in other countries.

Then, what about cramp schooling in Japan and Korea? They are not much different from the “rote learning” we have here in our JC.

Ultimately, if Int Snob hasn’t been to Yale or Harvard, how would she know how different the US system is from Singapore’s?


I agree that these are elite colleges, reserved for those with excellent academic results, and probably with some class background. But remember there are other, “second tier” universities in the US. Foreign ≠ Better.

And the top twenty places in university rankings of Asian universities for NUS and NTU aren’t bought with money, they are the combined effort of their students and academics. To doubt that means really, to doubt yourself, Int Snob.