News

This is a nice normal distribution curve and this is what we expect of the performance of a representative sample of students when having an exam: a few hopeless cases, lots of average students and a few very bright persons.

Here is what we have instead in Mauritius:

This is taken from pg. 24 of the Draft Education & Human Resources Strategy Plan for 2008-2020 published yesterday by the Mauritian Ministry of Education. Here is a revealing quote:

“The above results from the academic deficit starting from the primary sector. An analysis of the distribution of pupils’ pass rates at the CPE level over the past six years indicates that the distribution of scores is “U-shaped” instead of the expected normal bell-shaped distribution associated with the distribution of intelligence in the population. Indeed, the distribution of pupil achievement scores is very unusual. This is depicted in Figure 4 […]. Mauritius produces a significant number of primary school graduates with “A” scores and a significant number with “F” scores and a low number of pupils with the intermediate scores of “B” to “E”. 

 The “U- shaped” curve indicates that the system has developed into a two track-system and characterises an important inequity in learning pupil achievement.”

The Ministry of Education of the Republic of Mauritius is officially saying that our primary education system level has developed into a two track-system. I would say that the same thing is happening at secondary and tertiary levels.

The Minister is not saying that rich people are on the right and poor people on the left. Instead, he is saying that this U-shape curve is in total contradiction with the normal distribution of intelligence in the population. This means that CPE exam do not test the intelligence of young Mauritians. What does it test? God knows.

Personally, I’m disgusted. We are destroying the future of countless young people every year and wasting a lot of money on lots of scholarships for people who don’t come back to contribute (or have the decency to respect the terms of the bond they signed.)

Time for change I would say. Is this the Obama effect I was hoping for?

Money does not grow on trees. Everyone knows that. In fact, our small country Mauritius has only few reliable sources of income, one of the largest being taxpayers money. Yes, the tax we all pay month-in month out.

My previous post on the Cambridge fiasco provoked a lot of discussion. One comment from fluxy was particularly interesting because it illustrates one of the fallacies of our education system. He writes:

[T]here are many people competing for scholarship, and although only a handful become laureates, there are many who get excellent results, hence the competition itself motivates students to work harder and obtain great results.

[…]

[M]any of those don’t return because their expectations are too high to be met by local opportunities. Unless we improve our local offers (which is not really possible – dependent on local economy..etc), scholarships is the only way out.

Give the devil his/her due and the laureate his/her scholarship.

Can you see the fallacy?

Here it is: it’s an absolute fallacy to think that a laureate is due a scholarship because he/she has worked harder than others at HSc level. In fact, we, as taxpayers, couldn’t care less (remember, taxpayers are the ones who pay for scholarships.)

Rather, the Mauritian Government invests in a promising young Mauritian because he/she has demonstrated some potential. We ask the young person to sign a bond (to come back and work for at least five years here if my memory serves me correctly) because the Government wants to have return on investment and needs competent people to come back to contribute towards the development of the country. Or else the future is bleak.

Now think about how many scholarship holders return to Mauritius. 50%? 25%? 10%? Pretty much pathetic, isn’t it?

Sure, there will also be a number of Mauritians who won’t return “because their expectations are too high to be met by local opportunities.” That’s fine. What they need to do is to take a loan from a bank to finance their studies. I only want to finance those who give back to the country.

Remember, a scholarship is an investment for the future. It’s not a due.

27 March 2013: an update

I’ve reworded the next to last paragraph to better reflect my perception of all this. It is not really important if the person returns or not provided he/she contributes something substantial back in any way whatsoever. Some don’t.