For all you camwhores out there.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
So there's no valedictorian. What's it to you?
The grapevine that is Facebook has been rife with speculation that the graduating cohort of CS 2010 will not have a valedictorian to deliver the valedictory address, also known as the valediction. Apparently, there is a directive from above that each convocation session will have only one valediction, and since CS is sharing a convocation with ADM, the ADM valedictorian will deliver the address instead.
The valediction is typically a speech which takes an inspirational nature, where the most brilliant graduating student of the cohort takes it upon himself/herself to deliver an address to the rest of the students, summarising the trials and tribulations of years past, thanking teachers for their dedication, while inviting the graduates to embark upon the next stage of their lives in earnest.
In recent years, several schools have started abolishing the practice of having a valedictorian, simply on the grounds that more students nowadays are taking easier courses to inflate their grade point average. Perhaps the selection of the valedictorian should come under closer scrutiny, but the importance of the address cannot be understated.
I will never be in favour of abolishing the address, because just as chairpersons of schools typically take it upon themselves to welcome students to the institution with an opening address, there should be a closing address to bid farewell to these same students, to draw this chapter of life to a close.
The valediction is the heart and soul of a convocation, the emotionally charged address that underpins what is otherwise a going through of the motions, the act of handing out a certificate of completion and the perfunctory congratulations, of no significance to anyone else except the immediate family and friends of the receiver who have long waited to see that day. The valediction is the summation of a journey of self-actualisation.
Education is the engine of human development, and the address is an acknowledgment that the cohort, as a whole, has finally scaled a significant pinnacle in their lives. There might be many more peaks to conquer, but that does not take away the need to acknowledge achievements for what they are.
The valediction does not belong just to the valedictorian. It belongs to every single member of the cohort. To have just one valediction for two separate faculties is akin to robbery. The actual content of the address may be inconsequential in time, but a graduating cohort will never forget suffering the indignity of being slighted at their own graduation, of not having someone to speak for their experiences. This is the heart of the issue that has sowed discontent amongst the graduates.
I believe that education is egalitarian. No one discipline matters more than another, and as such members of any faculty should have equal rights at their convocations. Why should we settle for having someone from another faculty speak for us, no matter how outstanding the graduate?
I could be even more cynical and draw a wider parallel. Since you can have someone from ADM deliver an address in our stead, why not pair up a student from ADM with every CS student, and have them collect our degrees for us too?
If you are to argue that every student should collect their own degree, then why should it be any different that each faculty should have its own representative?
This is not the legacy NTU will want to leave its graduates. An extra ten minutes or so for an additional address is hardly an impossibility in a ceremony that typically lasts hours. Is it necessary to deny the symbolism of such an address for a simple matter of timekeeping, or a need to remain true to regulations? Rules are rules, but rules that are too inflexible in changing circumstances become anachronisms, and rules that are unjust will inevitably create resentment and an agitation for change.
What we are asking for is a simple right, a universal franchise, which is the right of representation, the right to have our own voice at our own graduation. We need an affirmation that our faculty matters to the university. I find it extremely ironic that as a school of communication, the school does not want to see just how well we have learnt how to communicate at the end of our degree.
The valediction is typically a speech which takes an inspirational nature, where the most brilliant graduating student of the cohort takes it upon himself/herself to deliver an address to the rest of the students, summarising the trials and tribulations of years past, thanking teachers for their dedication, while inviting the graduates to embark upon the next stage of their lives in earnest.
In recent years, several schools have started abolishing the practice of having a valedictorian, simply on the grounds that more students nowadays are taking easier courses to inflate their grade point average. Perhaps the selection of the valedictorian should come under closer scrutiny, but the importance of the address cannot be understated.
I will never be in favour of abolishing the address, because just as chairpersons of schools typically take it upon themselves to welcome students to the institution with an opening address, there should be a closing address to bid farewell to these same students, to draw this chapter of life to a close.
The valediction is the heart and soul of a convocation, the emotionally charged address that underpins what is otherwise a going through of the motions, the act of handing out a certificate of completion and the perfunctory congratulations, of no significance to anyone else except the immediate family and friends of the receiver who have long waited to see that day. The valediction is the summation of a journey of self-actualisation.
Education is the engine of human development, and the address is an acknowledgment that the cohort, as a whole, has finally scaled a significant pinnacle in their lives. There might be many more peaks to conquer, but that does not take away the need to acknowledge achievements for what they are.
The valediction does not belong just to the valedictorian. It belongs to every single member of the cohort. To have just one valediction for two separate faculties is akin to robbery. The actual content of the address may be inconsequential in time, but a graduating cohort will never forget suffering the indignity of being slighted at their own graduation, of not having someone to speak for their experiences. This is the heart of the issue that has sowed discontent amongst the graduates.
I believe that education is egalitarian. No one discipline matters more than another, and as such members of any faculty should have equal rights at their convocations. Why should we settle for having someone from another faculty speak for us, no matter how outstanding the graduate?
I could be even more cynical and draw a wider parallel. Since you can have someone from ADM deliver an address in our stead, why not pair up a student from ADM with every CS student, and have them collect our degrees for us too?
If you are to argue that every student should collect their own degree, then why should it be any different that each faculty should have its own representative?
This is not the legacy NTU will want to leave its graduates. An extra ten minutes or so for an additional address is hardly an impossibility in a ceremony that typically lasts hours. Is it necessary to deny the symbolism of such an address for a simple matter of timekeeping, or a need to remain true to regulations? Rules are rules, but rules that are too inflexible in changing circumstances become anachronisms, and rules that are unjust will inevitably create resentment and an agitation for change.
What we are asking for is a simple right, a universal franchise, which is the right of representation, the right to have our own voice at our own graduation. We need an affirmation that our faculty matters to the university. I find it extremely ironic that as a school of communication, the school does not want to see just how well we have learnt how to communicate at the end of our degree.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Oh yeah oh yeah oh yeah hey!
I'm sure everyone is familiar with the YOG cheer.
I mean, how could you not be. It's on TV all the time, despite the fact that really, it's about the worst song I've ever heard. No offence to JJ Lin, he's a very competent songwriter, but what inspired him to come out with this "song" is beyond me.
Notice comments have been disabled? Well, it's precisely because there were too many people saying exactly what they thought of it, which wasn't very nice.
The only thing going for this song is, it's so catchy it's a earworm. Hear it a few times and it's destined for that part of your consciousness where you find that you're singing it to yourself and doing the hand actions even as you tell yourself that you're being brainwashed into doing so. Like all of Lady Gaga's songs.
Really, what's with the hand actions? Are they trying to teach us how to Hadouken like in Dragon Ball? Hadouken, hadouken, hadouken, BIG HADOUKEN. Okay, can we start cheering now? Oh shit, that was the cheer? No you're kidding me right?
But just when you thought that was bad, you watch JJ Lin attempt to do his best at firing you up with finger guns. Pew pew pew!!
Omg, kill me now. Really.
Now, here are what I consider true Olympic song classics.
1) Celine Dion's The Power of the Dream for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics
2) Sarah Brightman and Jose Carreras performing "Amigos Para Siempre" at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics
So inspirational. What happened to real music?
But anyway, at least the theme song is okay. They should really give more publicity to it, "Everyone", instead of the stupid cheer. At least the theme song is not irritating.
Sean Kingston can't sing for shit. Nothing like an acoustic performance to take the sheen off overproduced stars.
And, now, it's time for me to be a patriotic Singaporean. Oh yeah oh yeah oh yeah hey! Pew pew pew!!
I mean, how could you not be. It's on TV all the time, despite the fact that really, it's about the worst song I've ever heard. No offence to JJ Lin, he's a very competent songwriter, but what inspired him to come out with this "song" is beyond me.
Notice comments have been disabled? Well, it's precisely because there were too many people saying exactly what they thought of it, which wasn't very nice.
The only thing going for this song is, it's so catchy it's a earworm. Hear it a few times and it's destined for that part of your consciousness where you find that you're singing it to yourself and doing the hand actions even as you tell yourself that you're being brainwashed into doing so. Like all of Lady Gaga's songs.
Really, what's with the hand actions? Are they trying to teach us how to Hadouken like in Dragon Ball? Hadouken, hadouken, hadouken, BIG HADOUKEN. Okay, can we start cheering now? Oh shit, that was the cheer? No you're kidding me right?
But just when you thought that was bad, you watch JJ Lin attempt to do his best at firing you up with finger guns. Pew pew pew!!
Omg, kill me now. Really.
Now, here are what I consider true Olympic song classics.
1) Celine Dion's The Power of the Dream for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics
2) Sarah Brightman and Jose Carreras performing "Amigos Para Siempre" at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics
So inspirational. What happened to real music?
But anyway, at least the theme song is okay. They should really give more publicity to it, "Everyone", instead of the stupid cheer. At least the theme song is not irritating.
Sean Kingston can't sing for shit. Nothing like an acoustic performance to take the sheen off overproduced stars.
And, now, it's time for me to be a patriotic Singaporean. Oh yeah oh yeah oh yeah hey! Pew pew pew!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)