Attrition
It is notoriously difficult to extract information about attrition rates from Singapore government scholarship agencies. Thankfully, we have the internet now and can do some kind of basic comparison between lists of scholarship awardees on JC websites and lists of scholars on scholarship websites. I tried doing this for the list of A*Star scholars from RJC in 2002. The results were somewhat interesting. Of all the biomedical sciences scholars, as far as I can tell, all are still with A*Star. Most are now in the PhD stage, and a small minority are in other positions within A*Star. The “science and engineering” scholars proved much harder to track down. To the best of my Googling abilities and from personal communications, I found that of the 15 of them,
- seven have either broken the bonds or had the scholarship revoked or accepted the scholarship but reversed their decisions before beginning their studies, as determined by personal communications or from their current positions, and
- two cannot be found among any current scholars or staff on government websites .
The small sample size presents problems for drawing any firm generalizations from this. But I thought the contrast with the biomedical scholars was striking.
Is there a gender breakdown somewhere in the number of bond breakers and the gender ratio in the biomedical sciences vs. science and engineering?
Comment by Fox — May 23, 2010 @ 1:57 am
I think it’s too early to call on the ASTAR scholars - many bondbreakers leave only after getting a better job offer and/or having saved up enough dough to leave. The longer maturation period of PhD scholars and the higher LD surely must skew in favor of fewer, later bondbreakers.
Comment by AcidFlask — May 23, 2010 @ 2:24 pm
Fox:
For the 2002 cohort, 6/7 of the ‘bond-breakers’ I could identify are male, but the science and engineering scholars intake skews heavily male anyway. I’m sure the exact gender ratio of biomed vs sci/eng scholars for each batch could be figured out with some judicious googling, but my impression is that the gender imbalance in sci/eng scholars is pretty persistent in later batches.
Comment by twasher — May 23, 2010 @ 7:56 pm
A simple explanation is as follows:
The bio scholars are none other than the people who failed to get into NUS medicine. For obvious reasons: they lack the mental maturity and acuity to seek greener pastures, and as a result, had their applications summarily dismissed by those authorities capable of judging their intellectual merit and mettle. All those whom I know were extended the opportunity to study medicine have naturally chosen to do the obvious. All those who haven’t, are doomed to a life in servitude and menial obscurity (think wash test tubes).
Secondly, bio scholars, with their limited (if existent) knowledge of anything remotely transferable to life outside biology, are simply incapable of branching into more lucrative trades in engineering, law or finance. Their only route is to pursue graduate medical school in a US-style system. Why they still fail to do so is explained by the first point.
Hence the conclusion.
Comment by Locke — May 23, 2010 @ 8:07 pm
twasher:
So, could the disparity between the biomedical sciences and the science/engineering be due to the skewed gender ratio?
Comment by Fox — May 26, 2010 @ 6:54 pm
Fox,
Obviously there isn’t enough statistical information to tell. But if it’s due to the skewed gender ratio, then you would expect more males from the biomedical sciences to have left. They haven’t. I think the more likely explanation is that A*Star is much stronger in the biomedical sciences, so biomedical sciences scholars are more likely to think they have a good future in A*Star.
Comment by twasher — May 27, 2010 @ 1:57 am