Time to give underdogs a chance?

There has been a great hoo-haa over this issue in the ST forum over the past few days, the issue of whether to give underdogs (e.g people who have obtained perhaps less than 3 As in their A levels examination) a chance to get a scholarship.

' MS LYDIA Rahman's letter, while persuasive, receives little sympathy from me. While I agree that we have to broaden our definition of success, the basic barometer for scholarship boards still has to be grades. (ST Forum)'

How true that is. No, I am not one who is biased against people who do not do well in exams. I myself can be considered an underdog, just that I happened to be lucky. College students are doing extraordinarily well in A levels. HCJC and RJC boasts almost, if not more than 50% of their students getting 3 distinctions in their papers. Logically thinking, if grades were not used as a barometer for distingushing those who qualify for scholarship interviews, how many students will agencies have to interview if all students with 3 distinctions apply for a place?

Many of the scholarship recipients I know have a vibrant co-curricular life, in addition to their outstanding results, and we shouldn't begrudge them their just reward. (ST Forum)

The subsequent interviews after the 'grade gauge' will determine if a student gets a scholarship. How many scholars around are simply geeks? Almost none. I take a look around me and find most of my friends to be ex- Council members, ex - Chairperson of clubs, ex - Sports captain etc. And how many of these people here have fallen from grace before? My friend from college, Mr Ng came from a humble background, and he worked as he studied to support his family. Despite Council, working and taking care of his siblings taking up most of his time, he managed an outstanding A levels result to clinch a scholarship. Those who overcome difficulties and excelled are those who truely deserves scholarships, not those who complain about a dip in results due to 'personal problems'.

On a last note, I would agree that the society definitely have to give 'underdogs' chances to further their education, as every member of the Singaporean community is worth doing so. However, if you were a company director, would you risk $400,000 worth of liability to award someone with less than satisfactory results with a scholarship? If yes, what's the incentive for those who slogged through 10 years of their lives to produce outstanding academic and CCA results? What injustice.