Objection!

To the point. I got into law school! Me! Disciple of Jessica "is this chicken or is this fish" Simpson! Yes it's ONLY NUS but it's still quite an achievement. I'm quite pleased with myself really. I would be lying if I said I wasn't. After a bout of internal wrangling and sundry bits of advice, I decided to accept that instead of Business Management and Accounting at SMU, which admittedly was terribly appealing too.

Which brings me to the next point. Does it really matter WHERE one studies? For the record, I would study in the States, if a Daddy scholarship had been offered to me, because I do think that an American degree would stand me in better stead as I climb the corporate ladder in the future. My question is this. Do people who read Econs in NUS FASS really receive an inferior education compared to those doing so in say, Stanford? In terms of internships, Stanford wins out for sure, no doubt about that. Nothing beats securing a prized internship at the HQ of some huge MNC in the States. Citibank US > Citibank Singapore no?

But when it comes down to education per se, does Stanford really confer a superior degree? Are the undergraduates there taught some special economic theories that the professors in NUS are blissfully unaware of? Do they learn how to draw graphs or form equations using magical methods that only they are privy to? Perhaps, most importantly, does Stanford produce graduates of superior character to students graduating from universities outside that ivory tower of the Ivy League? Because at the end of the day, a degree is a piece of paper. Career advancement does not rely on that alone. Your superiors have to like you. That's about it really. Whether this is due to your stellar work performance, or just plain sucking up, they have to like you, period.

As an employer, would I like a back-stabbing, sly, hypocritical, superficial, shallow, pretentious, obnoxious, ignorant, insecure, deluded Stanford graduate who behaves like some omnipresent, all-knowing super-intelligent being but is really just a pathetic, whiny, holier-than-thou loser? Someone who presumes to be a man of culture and refinement, the epitome of chic urban sophistication, but in reality doesn't know what the hell he is talking about half of the time, and comes off sounding like the uninformed twit he really is when he opens his mouth. Someone with absolutely no sense of morals, ethics, or common decency, who champions the "moral high-ground". Someone who thinks everyone loves him but is (perhaps blissfully) unaware that a majority of people find him to be nothing but an annoying irritant, like the fly buzzing about you incessantly who refuses to give you a moment's peace. Indeed, such a person would easily find employment and quick career advancement...in hell.

So you see, it really isn't about where you study. It's about how competent you are in your work and, most importantly, your goodness as a person. I'm not pretending to be better than the theoratical example above. But it's something I am striving toward. To have genuine compassion for others, to volunteer for community service because I really want to, not because it gets me CCA points or looks good on my resume. Yes yes, talk is cheap, but it really is better than doing and saying nothing at all.

-Simon-