周五，2009年9月25日，8.41pm
在神学院当老师至今已将近九年，不知自己是否有慢下来，抑或是懒散了，但是我必须好好的追求上进，不让任何学生的态度，或学院办事欠佳，或个人偶尔对学院的失望，或对自己缺乏发表等而失望。人生在世，毕竟有不少自己理想中期望能够做而却做不到的事，也有许多自己不想做但是却必须做的事，也有许多自己被逼而做的事等等。最重要的是在做任何事，都当带着勤奋的态度，且专注所做的事，避开闲话。
其中一项在这些年当教师的日子中所面对的事，就是作业批改。多少同学就因着我严格而导致他们拿不到“优”等成绩而感到不满意。有些认为我是个没有“牧者心肠”的老师，有些则认为我没有“恩典”，更有些认为我没有基督！这些主要都是在新加坡的几间学院所经历的，其中最严重的可说是新亚学院。
这是一所自称是有灵命的学院，可做事却没有原则的学院！曾经有一位中国人，李天峰，自以为毕业于北大，就很傲慢，但他的作业是多么的没有水准而只从我这里拿到了一个C的时候，他对我是多么的没有礼貌，甚至不停的在我的背后传播诽谤的谎言！问题是：学院的中文部主任竟然维护他，甚至说他是一个谦卑的同学！
这些不以高要求为水准的学院和主任似乎只是在讨好学生，结果批改作业时也一直给予同学们A，使他们拿A惯了，就不能接受自己是不适合读书的人。我个人认为象李天峰那样的学生，学院应该严重惩罚他，让他学习学习真正的谦卑。
论到批改作业的水准，我想我们真的还在西方后面很远。他们关心水准，而我们却经常讲假话。每当我想起这些事，我就好感恩，因为上帝带我脱离如此的一个学院。感谢主！
Friday, September 25, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Education Can't be Rushed, and Treatment of Professors Must be Fair
Friday, 25th September 2009, 07:53am
It was with much rushing and flying that I visited Singapore from 17th July to 10th August 2009, and again from 18th to 20th September 2009. During this periods, particularly the former, I had more time to spend time with some friends, most of whom are in education line. One of my purposes in the visit was to preach in Providence Presbyterian Church as part of its invitation preparation to serve full-time there. That is to say, the leadership of the church would like to hear me preach first, before proceeding further. I on my part decided to accept the invitation on a non-committal basis.
It was there that I learnt more about the situation in Singapore a year after I left for Hong Kong. First of all, the church does not seem to know what my role/s would be. This once again re-emerged as an issue during my latter trip. Further, I now understood from the leadership represented by one of its key leaders that theological education would be something the church should not be embarking upon. In addition, the remuneration package would have to be far below my current package. All this is helpful for my own decision making.
Secondly, I came to appreciate my teaching job here in Hong Kong. For during the two trips, I discovered that the Pentecostal College I was working in before my departure for Hong Kong actually invited a former SBC (Singapore Bible College) colleague of mine to be a faculty member and offered him a starting salary of S$4,000.00, which was S$1,000.00 more than what I was offered! This was something I was upset about, for that former colleague of mine holds only a master of divinity degree from Singapore Bible College, and has not been able to complete his PhD at a nineth rate seminary in the States. He has no publications and his PhD does not seem to be near completion anytime now. Yet, that College offered him such a big salary!
I should know better, actually. For when I was there in that Pentecostal College, the leadership actually told a few blatant lies. One of which in fact directly involved me. It was over several 'descriptors' which the leadership had asked others to write, but have my name down as the writer. These were in fact the equivalents of our 'course syllabi', written up as part of the requirement for the application for validation of our BA in theology degree by a UK university. And it was only about an hour and a half before a scheduled meeting with the representatives from the UK university that I was told to lie that I was the one who wrote it, if I was ever asked by any of the representatives. The other lie was about the college not making a single cent from the doctoral programme conducted on behalf of that UK university, when in fact that university gives back to this Pentecostal college two-thirds of what a student pays for the fees. In other words, the Pentecostal college was and is making quite an amount from the PhD programme. But the leaders have lied about it, not once, nor twice, but again and again.
Having learnt about the first incident, that my friend was offered S$4,000.00, I am quite pleased that I have left the college and come to Hong Kong.
But the above issues are not as problematic as the attitude of rushing to get a degree programme validated, while professors and lecturers are being unfairly and unjustly treated. One of these problems has to do with the idolatrous practice of 'worshipping the whites and the west'! If a lecturer comes from the West, then he is better and should be rewarded more. He is even better if he is a white. In the first theological school I taught at, if the lecturer is a white, and comes from some of those schools considered 'elite' by the leadership (but in fact are nineth rate seminaries such as Dallas and Trinity), then that lecturer will have carpet reception, and whatever he says will be treated with more than the gospel truth! Such is the college's idolatry!
In another theological college, if a lecturer is a local but attends one of the 'elite' schools such as RI (Raffles Institute) or ACS (Anglo-Chinese School), and is a member of the Methodist, then he is one-up and will receive better treatment. If he is an Anglican, he too will be well treated. For the bishop of the Anglican church is very much involved in the governance of the college. Better still, if the lecturer has attended an 'elite' university in the UK or a seminary in the States, never mind if he cannot teach, or is hot-tempered or stupid.
It is important for education to be made available to as many as possible. However, education takes time and therefore cannot be rushed. For educating a person is a long and arduous process, and more so theological education. There is a need to know, understand and grasp the philosophy of education of a school, before one proceeds further. In this light, education can never be embarked upon for the purpose of profiteering. This is even more so in theological education. In almost every seminary in Asia, none can survive as a seminary by solely depending on income generated from school fees. For fees only make up about a tenth of the budget in most seminaries. Even in secular universities, none have managed to make its programme part of the overall profit-making strategy. Usually, universities that survive well financially are those that engage in cutting-edge and high level research, which yields original results for the industry. In theological education, seminaries would need to engage the 'industry (i.e. the church)' if they ever want to survive financially.
Further, the professors are the real backbone or software of the seminary. If the professor/lectuers are not respected and given the space to work and develop themselves, then the seminary would have to be prepared for frequent faculty exits! In a sense, education not only involves the persons being educated, but also the faculty who are themselves continually being educated, and self-educating. The progressive ones will want to grow and seek the betterment of the self, while the incompetent ones usually will be content with the status quo. Seminary's leadership that is satisfied with such a state of affairs only destroys the seminary in the long run.
Let us be quick in thinking, just in treatment of professors, but slow to offer more degree programmes, slow to encourage paper chase.
It was with much rushing and flying that I visited Singapore from 17th July to 10th August 2009, and again from 18th to 20th September 2009. During this periods, particularly the former, I had more time to spend time with some friends, most of whom are in education line. One of my purposes in the visit was to preach in Providence Presbyterian Church as part of its invitation preparation to serve full-time there. That is to say, the leadership of the church would like to hear me preach first, before proceeding further. I on my part decided to accept the invitation on a non-committal basis.
It was there that I learnt more about the situation in Singapore a year after I left for Hong Kong. First of all, the church does not seem to know what my role/s would be. This once again re-emerged as an issue during my latter trip. Further, I now understood from the leadership represented by one of its key leaders that theological education would be something the church should not be embarking upon. In addition, the remuneration package would have to be far below my current package. All this is helpful for my own decision making.
Secondly, I came to appreciate my teaching job here in Hong Kong. For during the two trips, I discovered that the Pentecostal College I was working in before my departure for Hong Kong actually invited a former SBC (Singapore Bible College) colleague of mine to be a faculty member and offered him a starting salary of S$4,000.00, which was S$1,000.00 more than what I was offered! This was something I was upset about, for that former colleague of mine holds only a master of divinity degree from Singapore Bible College, and has not been able to complete his PhD at a nineth rate seminary in the States. He has no publications and his PhD does not seem to be near completion anytime now. Yet, that College offered him such a big salary!
I should know better, actually. For when I was there in that Pentecostal College, the leadership actually told a few blatant lies. One of which in fact directly involved me. It was over several 'descriptors' which the leadership had asked others to write, but have my name down as the writer. These were in fact the equivalents of our 'course syllabi', written up as part of the requirement for the application for validation of our BA in theology degree by a UK university. And it was only about an hour and a half before a scheduled meeting with the representatives from the UK university that I was told to lie that I was the one who wrote it, if I was ever asked by any of the representatives. The other lie was about the college not making a single cent from the doctoral programme conducted on behalf of that UK university, when in fact that university gives back to this Pentecostal college two-thirds of what a student pays for the fees. In other words, the Pentecostal college was and is making quite an amount from the PhD programme. But the leaders have lied about it, not once, nor twice, but again and again.
Having learnt about the first incident, that my friend was offered S$4,000.00, I am quite pleased that I have left the college and come to Hong Kong.
But the above issues are not as problematic as the attitude of rushing to get a degree programme validated, while professors and lecturers are being unfairly and unjustly treated. One of these problems has to do with the idolatrous practice of 'worshipping the whites and the west'! If a lecturer comes from the West, then he is better and should be rewarded more. He is even better if he is a white. In the first theological school I taught at, if the lecturer is a white, and comes from some of those schools considered 'elite' by the leadership (but in fact are nineth rate seminaries such as Dallas and Trinity), then that lecturer will have carpet reception, and whatever he says will be treated with more than the gospel truth! Such is the college's idolatry!
In another theological college, if a lecturer is a local but attends one of the 'elite' schools such as RI (Raffles Institute) or ACS (Anglo-Chinese School), and is a member of the Methodist, then he is one-up and will receive better treatment. If he is an Anglican, he too will be well treated. For the bishop of the Anglican church is very much involved in the governance of the college. Better still, if the lecturer has attended an 'elite' university in the UK or a seminary in the States, never mind if he cannot teach, or is hot-tempered or stupid.
It is important for education to be made available to as many as possible. However, education takes time and therefore cannot be rushed. For educating a person is a long and arduous process, and more so theological education. There is a need to know, understand and grasp the philosophy of education of a school, before one proceeds further. In this light, education can never be embarked upon for the purpose of profiteering. This is even more so in theological education. In almost every seminary in Asia, none can survive as a seminary by solely depending on income generated from school fees. For fees only make up about a tenth of the budget in most seminaries. Even in secular universities, none have managed to make its programme part of the overall profit-making strategy. Usually, universities that survive well financially are those that engage in cutting-edge and high level research, which yields original results for the industry. In theological education, seminaries would need to engage the 'industry (i.e. the church)' if they ever want to survive financially.
Further, the professors are the real backbone or software of the seminary. If the professor/lectuers are not respected and given the space to work and develop themselves, then the seminary would have to be prepared for frequent faculty exits! In a sense, education not only involves the persons being educated, but also the faculty who are themselves continually being educated, and self-educating. The progressive ones will want to grow and seek the betterment of the self, while the incompetent ones usually will be content with the status quo. Seminary's leadership that is satisfied with such a state of affairs only destroys the seminary in the long run.
Let us be quick in thinking, just in treatment of professors, but slow to offer more degree programmes, slow to encourage paper chase.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)