Propagator

I must say I have entrusted the role of valuing and measuring my abilities to my teachers. I trusted them to identify my potential and supply me with Truths of the world. They have, repeatedly failed me and led me to question their authority in the subject matter they are supposed to be handling. I claim no authority but cannot help wondering if I can continue to leverage on their interpretation of Truths…

An Update

I have forgiven the teachers for their unthinking tendencies when marking scripts. I admit my inadequacies in attempts to make conceptual understanding explicit. It’s like I explained how gases behaviour and how the molecules interact as well as the macro-properties of the gases observed in theory and in practice but failed to give the ideal gas equation (something that is apparently regurgitated) and so I was faulted. Of course, the subject in concern is not Chemistry but Economics. My teachers have been brought up under strict, disciplined, traditional studies of Economics that emphasized theory over empirical study, that employs concepts rather than parallel experiences; while my passion and interest is fired up by books like ‘Freakonomics‘, ‘The Undercover Economist‘ or ‘MicroMotive & MacroBehaviour‘. I find validation of my knowledge with Sloman but that is all. I haven’t even read Wealth of Nations though I don’t doubt the fact that the book wouldn’t help me much in tackling the A Levels.

I shall get through a formal Economics education and get back at them some time in the future. Of course, I am hoping I would feel grateful to them when I am back (I am currently not a bit grateful because I feel that my knowledge are all self-assembled and not a bit imparted by them); if I still feel the same as now, I guess something has to be done to save the coming generations of youngsters.

It has been a really long time since I commented on any social phenomenon at all but reading through my Human Geography materials has forced me to develop some viewpoints about social issues I normally wouldn’t bother. The idea I was introduced to is about the ‘Equal Emancipation’ of women at both the level of the society and education. In one of Janadas Devan’s columns in The Straits Times a few years back (yea, we use newspaper articles across a range of years as materials for our study of population), he described the phenomenon of a seeming direct and proportional relationship between female participation in the workforce and fertility. Comparing figures between countries like Sweden and Spain, one realised that Sweden has a fertility rate above 1.5 while Spain’s fertility is below 1.5 while Sweden’s female participation in workforce is significantly higher than in Spain.

Such a counterintuitive observation is explained by the inequality in emancipation of females in education and society at large. In countries such as Italy and Spain, female enjoy same education levels as their counterparts in the other developed nation but generally enjoy lower status in the society. Experts believes that the inequality that the females in this more chauvinistic societies led them to go on a ‘womb-strike’ because child-bearing is seen as a form of adherence the traditional perceptions of women (which is that of lower status) and as these society is less understanding of the woes of working mothers, they enjoy less accommodation/encouragement by the employers – this would mean that it was harder for mothers to rise in the corporate ladders. This made females more determined not to give birth while they are into their career, dragging the total fertility rate with it. On the other hand, in the Nordic states like Sweden, with their strong support for working women, not only has social equality for females but also tailor policies to ensure that females do not lose their advantage in the corporate settings because of their family ‘responsibility’ of child-bearing. Excellent child-care services further relieve the burden of working mothers and reduces their worries linked to child-bearing. Father’s responsibility in child-care is also emphasized and there’s a mandatory paternal leave period.

In contrast, expectations of females to stay at home to care of the children without the husband’s aid in the family chores in the male-dominated societies of Spain and Japan pushes females who are working to stay childless. There’s is thus a very complex relationship between socio-economic development and fertility. While traditional theories that suggest that socio-economic advancements necessitates rising cost of child rearing and naturally leads to falling fertility rates, there is a bottom to this because cost factors is not the only concern of parents. The attitudes towards childbearing and the motivations involved have to be considered. While emancipation of women and the increasing proportion of working women has been singled out as factors causing the fall in fertility, we now realise that these factors only reduce fertility to particular extents and further reduction can be attributed to problems pointed out in this entry – the unequal emancipation (in terms of mindset of society at large and the females themselves).

In understanding of such a social phenomenon, there are policy prescriptions that can be applied to Singapore. Singapore must seek to ensure greater equality for females (a good start is to lift any gender quota in anything – study of medicine in particular) and churn out policies that would aid working mothers with balancing their duties. While we already have programmes promoting family bonding and highlighting importance of families, the campaigns that restructure social mindsets (trust me, our government can work this out) to recognize the importance of father’s role in the family would help give females greater opportunities outside the family. If the mindset now is such that forming families restrict their opportunities and makes it harder for them to compete in the society, then it must be changed. Financial incentives such as grants and tax rebates would remain important in encouraging birth but in long run, attitudes must be changed. In the past, the reduction of family size became successful because the two-child norm was successfully erected, this time, the justification for bearing children is weak and we tried playing on ideas of family and patriotism. It turned out that it wasn’t the justification for childbearing that our people need, but the social environment that is friendly to females bearing children and corporate settings that do not discriminate against mothers (or fathers who now must share the responsibility of child-rearing for that matter).

Of course, I am not saying that this unequal emancipation is the sole cause or the root of the fertility problem but it can have significant impacts on the effects of policies and long term fertility trends. Economic growth stands out as another important factor as affluence encourage people to believe in their ability to raise a child; moreover, parents would very much like to give birth in an environment they believe to be good for their children and would contribute to their success.

Like ‘伪君子’ who ‘说一套，做一套’, Chemistry department is always setting questions that seem so far-fetched from what they teach. It doesn’t matter if they are testing something that may appear at the end of A Levels and force us to prepare for them. The problem, as you may figure out after 1.5 years in the college, is that the questions always differ in style and methods, so much so that it is hardly plausible to make generalization about the stuff that would possibly appear in the National Examinations. Of course, spotting questions is bad and we shouldn’t do that, but at least allow us to grasp the standard that is expected of us will you (those up there)? Some seem to enjoy setting examination papers in their ivory towers without concern for the standard of the student they are testing and without care about what they were teaching the students in the first place.

Those who patronize Ikea, for the little cool-designed stuff, or a couple of potted cactus, or perhaps just to get a towel might be aware that they no longer provide plastic bags for free and people who needs them have to purchase them by picking them up at baskets near the checkout counters. The plastic bags can cost cost up to 10-cents and in general, people who don’t purchase much stuff should not be expected to buy them. Curious about the economics of being ‘Green’, when I dropped by at Ikea today for a couple of items, I hunt for ways to circumvent the problem (or at least identify loopholes).

A survey of their policy reveals that plastic bags are still handed out freely for takeaways at Ikea Restaurant (I personally would really think about complaining if they expect me to purchase my plastic bags for takeaways); so it’s only the main store that stops the giving of free plastic bags. After picking up stuff to buy, it dawned on me that Ikea has the ‘wrapping area’ where they provide large pieces of brown waxed paper for wrapping porcelain products or glassware. I decided to try making a paper bag out of those. With the help of the masking tape provided (for free as well), I made a decent, huge doggie bag for carrying the items I purchased. It was a funny experience. I was rather worried I may get scolded for it but it turned out to be alright. I saved a the Earth by reducing the use of plastics, and a couple of cents for the plastic bags I may need to buy, but I also killed a tiny fraction of a tree and spent a couple of ATP worth of energy to make the paper bag. I wonder if it was worth the while.

Economic Analysis in this case is pretty difficult and I always think that although Ikea makes a lot of sense in their advertising and promotion of their own policies, they often overlook counter arguments (or intentionally ignore them) and presents things in too rosy ways. Perhaps they should try a dose of cynicism sometimes.

Sometimes, you know your school isn’t that good at teaching a particular subject but you are not sure how to show it. Traditional theories of student behaviour suggest that questioning of authority can be dangerous and a direct assault should be avoided. My numerous discourse that attempted to discount the importance of factors for different phenomena proposed by the economics department has met with failure (largely because of both herd mentality of teachers and perhaps a contempt for students who are not that consistent with schoolwork). So today, as a last minute attempt, I am trying this…

I glanced through the MOE H2 Economics Syllabus document and discovered the following clauses:

And in case you have been studying the price elasticity of supply or reading about price leadership models, maybe you like to switch to reading the syllabus document instead to attain a higher level of enlightenment.

In my September Holiday random wiki surfing, I stumbled upon an article on van ‘t Hoff, not because I wondering how fast chemical weathering will take place in the tropics or how moving the same piece of limestone from Jamaica to Canada can slow down its solution process. I was, in fact, looking at the article on the Arrhenius Equation mainly because I forgot if the (RT/Ea) that was a post-exponential factor had a negative in front of it.

I was first introduced to the name van ‘t Hoff in Physical Geography, when we studied about chemical weathering. We spelled his name as ‘Van Hoff’, apparently dropping off the necessary alphabets that conveys no information on how to pronounce his name. I had doubts about them being the same person but upon reading more about him in the Wikipedia article, I am pretty sure they are. In Physical Geography, we learn the Van Hoff’s Law.

Van Hoff’s Law states that for every 10 degree Celsius increase in environmental temperature, the rate of chemical weathering increases by two to threefolds.

Although this law appears strongly Chemistry, it is firmly grounded in the area of geology and the reason, I have realised, is that van ‘t Hoff was professor of chemistry, mineralogy, and geology at the University of Amsterdam for 18 years. I guess geology have not progressed that far since his time, relative to the subject of Chemistry. Looking at the work van ‘t Hoff did in Chemistry, I must say his talents had been way beyond the subject could offer him in his time. The most amazing thing is that he is the first ever recipient of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry and that was 1901 and obviously, Physical Geography have paid more tribute to him than Chemistry did. At least for today.

Van ‘t Hoff was responsible for proposing the relation between the rate constant, temperature and activation energy now known to be the Arrhenius Equation. Svante Arrhenius provided the physical justification and interpretation for the equation and thus got his name attached to the equation. Svante Arrhenius was one of those top scientists at that time who could have contributed greatly to today’s Physical Geography in area of Climate Science. He proposed the greenhouse effect and its link to ice ages. He received the third Nobel Prize in Chemistry in history, in 1903.

Subjects are converging once again…