SC2101 Methods of Social Research
Teri Chong A0171793W
Introduction
The debate between having an arts related education versus a science related education in the Singaporean society has been an implicitly recurring one. Singapore’s stringent competitive society has pushed for practicality in its people. This paper seeks to unravel the sociological perspective behind the reasons why some of the population choose to pursue the Science or the Arts. Currently, about 15% of Junior College students chose the arts stream over the science (Ministry of Education, 2014) . The theory posits that more are inclined to the sciences due to the competitive nature of the economy and society, leading them to conform to what society expects of them and thus playing into a socially constructed system, rather that the possibility of deviating from the norm due to possibilities of being seen as deviant. Possible factors include the influence of cultural ecology systems, Singapore’s education policies, social conformity in Singapore’s competitive and rigid economy and family socialization based on socioeconomic status.
For the purpose of this paper, two interviewees were chosen based on their critical choices of choosing to pursue an arts or science education in university. The two interviewees are: Mary* (names are changed for privacy), 20, female, pursuing a degree in Law. Mary pursued a full science education throughout her secondary education, taking triple sciences before making the decision to switch courses to pure arts in junior college. The second is Aisha*, 20. Aisha pursued a full science education from secondary school to university, currently pursuing an engineering degree.
Literature Review
Sentiments of arts versus science education can be tied towards the nature of the Singaporean society. Characteristics include 1. Largely conservative, 2. Strict and efficient, 3. Uniformed and with greater tendency to conform. Ng (2010) implied that the uniformity of education in Singapore as a microcosm of the larger uniformity in society.
Singapore’s society is one of the most efficient and competitive in the world, with consistent focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) industries, pushing for more differentiation in education in order to distinguish performance (Tan, 2010). This particular focus echoed the “ability driven” (Ng, 2010) nature of the Singapore education system, where the role of education is to drive economic needs in a competitive society. The nature of Singapore’s cultural ecology creates a high intensity society prone to rigidity and conformity (Ng, 2010).
Arts versus Science education is in a constant imbalance in the Singaporean society. The Arts holds a different precedence according to the social and economic climate in the given time, according to the needs of society. (Chong, 2017). Sciences therefore have a stronger stable undercurrent as compared to the fluidity of the arts. Chong (2017) emphasizes Ng’s claim that art as ‘long been cloaked in utilitarianism’, further arguing that the government has unconsciously placed an emphasis on mathematics and sciences as compared to the arts. Swaying the population towards one sector of education opens the factors affecting education decisions to societal pressures such as peer pressure, for fear of deviating from norms.
Extending this to have an effect on decisions made by people regarding the education they choose, it also brings the socio-economic status of family into play (Chiu & Khoo, 2005). Those higher in the spectrum are more likely to have greater resources to pursue more difficult courses or subjects, in turn being pushed further to fulfill their familial and societal ‘duty’. Ng (2010) and Chong (2017) discuss similar notions on factors affecting education decisions.
Methods
The methods used were largely qualitative. Face to face invitations were made to potential interviewees, before narrowing them down to the final two. The selection was made based on whether or not participants were: the same age, made the same critical choice and It was imperative to make sure that the interviewees were as similar as possible except for their one critical choice, in order to ensure the clarity of the results attained. Dates for the interviews were made through direct contact with the participants. The interviews were conducted on two dates from 1st to 5th March 2018 in English, in the late evening in the National University of Singapore.
A total of 10 questions were asked to the interviewees, not including follow-up questions. Some of these questions included those regarding the interviewee’s family’s socio-economic status. A large part of the questions was on the interviewee’s opinion on the factors affecting their decision, including “what is your family’s socio-economic status?”, “What were the attitudes of your family towards your decision?”, “Other than (reason given), what do you think pushed you to cross the line to do something you did not want to?” and “what are some other factors that affected your decision?”. Respondents were prompted with follow up questions when answers led to more interesting topics.
Results
Interviewee’s attitudes towards why they made their critical choice largely revolved around their family’s respective socio-economic backgrounds. Despite coming from vastly different social statuses and financial backgrounds, both interviewees expressed similarities in feelings of resignation towards their choices. The key determinants of their choices stemmed from their attitudes towards the subjects, family’s socio-economic status (SES) and socialization, leaning them towards resignation and conformity.
Attitudes towards Subjects
The interviewees attitudes towards subjects showed their ingrained stereotyping towards the arts and sciences. A sense of resignation was picked up in tone when their decisions made were explained:
“I feel like arts opens your mind, practical knowledge, but whereas stuff like engine not really. Sec 2 I had all options, she pushed me into physics and math, then engine. Sec 3 I wanted to do arts but my mom forces me to do science” (Aisha)
“Obviously I had a whale of a time doing science subjects because they were always so much easier compared to essays and readings. But even though what I’m doing now is considered ‘arts’, in a sense I’m still chasing practicality.” (Mary)
The attitude towards art subjects as seemingly an unstable choice compared to hard sciences permeated. This highlighted the importance of social security and social mobility to the younger generation of Singaporeans regarding what their education could provide them with.
“It’s because of job safety as if I had an engine degree I’ll have an immediate job so it’s kind of like about jobs security. With an engine degree, I’ll have a starting pay of approximately $4000, but Arts degree is more volatile. At least I’ll be stable you know.
“I feel like it’s (arts) something I wouldn’t dread studying every day, but practically speaking I would say engine is more secure, and I personally feel more secure in an engine degree also. Passion wise arts. But passion versus money, money ah.” (Aisha)
Despite making different decisions, both interviewees placed job security and mobility within the top tier of their decision making. The interviewee’s need for stability in the future when entering the workforce, and how they believed that their education decisions would play a strong part. However, this drive for social mobility was largely stemmed from family socio-economic status and family socialization.
Family’s Socio-economic Status and Socialization
Even though both interviewees expressed acknowledgement that their eventual decision was one they chose to make, the factor of their family backgrounds and current socio-economic statuses were large factors associated with their decision making. Below are the breakdowns of their family SES:
“My parents are both Indian nationals so most of my extended family is in India. I think both high ranking in their company, my mother is a CEO” (Aisha)
“My mom had me when she was 19, and my parents split so my mom and I struggled. Now even though she’s remarried there’s a constant anxiety about our instability. I think people still see her as a single mom kind of.” (Mary)
Family background was shown to have strongholds in affecting decision making, whether implicitly or explicitly. The importance of intergenerational mobility stood out amongst both responses, despite difference in SES. The responses when asked about family attitudes towards their decision are as follows:
“My mother chose it for me. In my household, there’s no such thing as going against my parents. There’s pretty much… I can’t say no. This goes back to India where they think that only doctors and engineers are legitimate careers. You know the culture in India is super rigid, and it’s very hard to disobey your parents. It’s this notion that’s been passed down to my grandparents to my parents and to me.” (Aisha)
“I wanted to do something else like lit or something but I resigned to law because it just gave off more stability… could tell my mom wanted it also the stability.” (Mary)
The importance and pressure for intergeneration mobility can see in how families with both higher and lower SES see ‘practical’ education courses as a symbol higher status and class.
“All my parents and their friends want their kids to be doctors, businessmen, lawyers, to be the best. I think it’s a status thing, where got CEO’s son study arts that kind. It really comes with status I feel. Also, my parents want me to take over them when I’m older, of course arts is out of the question.” (Aisha)
“She was quite happy when I told her I accepted the law school offer lor. Now she can show off. Like wow single mom but she made it with me anyway” (Mary)
This phenomenon was seen in both interviewees despite the different backgrounds. As such, the need to uphold a certain standard and class status according to one’s family’s socio-economic status thus gave rise to the underlying importance of intergenerational mobility.
Discussion
My findings were consistent with the literature discussed, showing the sentiments of Singaporeans about art versus science education in a conservative society (Ng, 2010). In addition, the interviews echoed the theory that family socialization and socio-economic status was an important factor in influencing the critical education decisions of both interviewees, as mentioned (Chiu & Khoo 2005; Ng, 2010). Yet, the initial other factor thought to affect the decision—peer pressure leading to conformity—plays a miniscule role in both interviewee’s accounts. This appeared to be the case due to the large emphasis on roles in family.
Singaporeans mostly have an inculcated sense of Asian familial values, making their family socialisation strong, hence explaining a likelier adherence to critical decisions that may affect their family. Moreover, the nature of a uniformed education system (Ng, 2010) has pushed Singaporeans to be more comfortable in a uniformed system rather than risk-taking, thus breeding conformity, whether conscious or unconscious.
These two factors helped to derive the larger purpose of making that critical decision, which was the emphasis towards intergenerational and even intragenerational mobility. Both higher income and lower income families placed great emphasis on the ability of education choices to influence social class and status. Despite having the means to provide for a less ‘practical;’ education route (Chiu & Khoo, 2005), higher income parents, as seen from the results are seen to place more rigid standards for their children, highlighting the prominent concern of class within their social stratification. As such, those from higher income families could be seen as having greater pressure to maintain or increase intergenerational mobility upwards as compared to those from lower socio-economic statuses.
Even when choosing arts over science, the desire to pursue something with more stability resonates. If the choice of pursuing an art education is seen as a deviant subculture by the family, the fact that one still makes the critical choice to adhere to societal and familial norms of pursuing a more’ practical’ arts education is thus ironically a version of conformity. This gives further insight into uniformity and conformity in the Singaporean society, where the fear of social repercussions causes negative perceptions of certain sectors, which explains the prevalence of a ‘herd-mentality’ in society.
Conclusion
In a largely competitive and conservative Asian society such as Singapore’s, one’s education decisions and even future career decisions are influenced by that of familial expectations of intergenerational mobility, in particular the advancing of familial social status.
References
Chiu, M.M., and L. Khoo (2005) “Effects of Resources, Inequality, and Privilege Bias on Achievement: Country, School, and Student Level Analyses.” American Educational Research Journal 42 (4): 575–603. doi: 10.3102/00028312042004575.
Chong, T. (2017). Arts Education in Singapore: Between Rhetoric and Reality. Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia 32(1), 107-136. ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute. Retrieved March 8, 2018, from Project MUSE database.
Irene Y.H. Ng (2014) Education and intergenerational mobility in Singapore, Educational Review, 66:3, 362-376, DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2013.780008
Planning Dicvision, Minstry of Education, Singapore 2015. Education Statistics Digest 2015. ISSN 0218-1134.
Tan, J. 2010. “Education in Singapore: Sorting Them Out?” Chap. 17 in Management of Success: Singapore Revisited, edited by T. Chong, 288–309. Singapore: Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies.