They first entered elementary school classrooms and administered a test. They then informed each teacher that, according to the test, a few specific students were bloomers - that is, they were about to take off and perform extremely well. The mere fact that the teachers were led to expect these students to do well caused a reliable improvement in their performance. This striking phenomenon is no fluke; it has been replicated a number of times in a wide variety of schools.
[The striking improvement is attributed to increased attention and respect from the teachers, albeit unconsciously]
-Rosenthal, R. (1995) Critiquing Pygmalion: A 25-year perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 171-172.
This particular passage struck a chord because it is similar to something I have often wondered about government scholars - do they perform well because they are inherently superior, or does the organisation have to justify offering them the scholarship and hence gives them more opportnities to distinguish themselves? I'm sure non-scholars working alongside must harbor such thoughts, although they have never been explicitly articulated to me.
A related question is whether they are really as selective as they would have the public think. This stems from a friend's personal experience when he told the board truthfully that he was not particularly interested to that line of work, but they gave it to him anyway. I reasoned then that he had all the necessary attributes to be a successful scholar, and they intended to rely on the grooming process to complete his personal development. So in some sense it's probably like a ballot among the top tier of candidates, not necessarily the topmost ones who get it.
And if a scholar is truly brilliant, would he remain with the organisation where bureaucracy always creates resistance to new ideas? Or would he prefer to strike out on his own, or join the private sector, where pay seems to be more commensurate with ability and contribution? I think passion for country is probably still the only thing that will retain people in the civil service in the long term. While the public seems fixated on excessive pay, it seems a fair compensation for the gruelling 24/7 hours that ministers and civil servants have to put in to fulfill their duties. If you had their capabilities, would you rather semi-retire and enjoy a comfortable life from your late forties on or continue to slug it out in the public arena until you are 80? Why does Tony Tan keep wanting to quit and the government keep pulling him back?
It's been a very long week and I don't really know where this is going, so I shall end off here. Perhaps some other night, I shall pick up the threads of thought again.
No comments:
Post a Comment