Talent Release Form - Student Activities - Texas A&M University: Fill & Download for Free

This is a wonderful question and one that I myself have been pondering and battling as I went through medical school and ultimately graduated through this past year. It’s very insightful of you to ask, because perhaps you are looking to go into medical school yourself or are wondering what sorts of things people actually learn in school.There are actually a huge set of skills that they don’t teach you in medical school, but the main ones that I will cover are ones that I feel my particular institution fell short on (and a few of my friends who were at various other institutions as well have agreed). **Please note that I write this as a United States Allopathic Medical School Graduate so results and opinions may differ depending on where you are from**Business/money skillsThis fits under the same category that someone else has actually mentioned in their post which is “Management and Entrepreneurship.” Most of medical school time is spent memorizing anatomy, biological cycles within the body, medications, physical examination skills and pathological diseases. None of the curriculum required by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) which is the accrediting medical school body has a financial planning requirement. They have requirements for schools to offer financial aid and financial counseling (which tends to be in the form of an office much like undergraduates have), but no actual requirements to teach individuals how to run a business, the basics of money, the basics of running a hospital or clinic, etc. Reality is that sometimes someone with a Bachelor’s in Business which takes 3–4 years is leagues ahead of a Doctor of Medicine who has been in school for at least 8 years when it comes to financial mastery.This is an even more important skill to learn especially when you take in the fact that the AVERAGE medical school debt is around $166,000. On top of the fact that the average resident salary is $52,000 (please keep in mind this is PRE-TAX) with a 5%-7% accruing debt interest, it’s all the more important to teach future docs how to handle money. This fact has become prominent enough to even have stories in everyday news ($1 million mistake: Becoming a doctor)Teaching skillsAgain I will refer to the LCME curriculum standards which anyone can see here: http://lcme.org/wp-content/uploads/filebase/standards/2017-18_Functions-and-Structure_2016-03-24.docx (which is the most up to date as far as I understand). Currently the curricular content section under “Standard 7” states the following categories:Biomedical, Behavioral, Social SciencesOrgan Systems/Life Cycle/Primary Care/Prevention/Wellness/Symptoms/Signs/ Differential Diagnosis, Treatment Planning, Impact of Behavioral and Social FactorsScientific Method/Clinical/Translational ResearchCritical Judgment/Problem-Solving SkillsSocietal ProblemsCultural Competence and Health Care DisparitiesMedical EthicsCommunication SkillsInterprofessional Collaborative SkillsAs you can see it is not a requirement to teach medical students how to teach, about adult or child learning theory, or even about how to learn as an individual. Why might this be important you ask? Well as a physician no matter what you do YOU WILL TEACH. As a resident (the first level of being a doctor a.k.a a doctor in training) you WILL be teaching medical students and patients. As an attending (when you are a fully fledged physician practicing on your own) you WILL once again be most likely teaching medical students, residents, and of course patients. Teaching is such an invaluable skill that as one of the most academic fields out there I find it amazing that we choose to ignore educating such a valuable skill. Some institutions are trying to implement programs, for example the school I came from had a medical education track which I was a part of, but again this is not required so not every doctor knows how to do this.Research SkillsSo listed above you see “Scientific Method/Clinical/Translational Research.” The way my school implemented it was to give a few lectures on the subject (by a few I really mean a few, as in maybe 1–3 a year perhaps like 8–10 over the course of 4 years and this is with us being constantly in class for the first 2 years getting lectures at least 5 days a week from 7am-5pm). These lectures entailed how to critically read a research article, learning how to cite sources and find good articles, and learn how to understand basic statistics. Unfortunately as many Ph.D’s, Masters Degree holders, and many avid researchers know there is so much more to actually be able to do research. How does one go ahead and get a grant? What forms do you need and how do you get IRB approval? How does one start a lab and get funding? What does a career in research look like and how does it even start?My school was particularly good in that if you were interested enough you could work real hard and find a good mentor in research and join a track program called the “Research Track” that had additional lectures and resources, but again this was not a requirement so not every doctor learns these skills. We would also have some required “research” projects, but to be honest it was not regulated in a way that Master’s/Ph.D Thesis’ would be nor would you get any assigned mentors (unless you were perhaps in the track program) so guidance was all up to how aggressively you sought it out. This means that some lackluster “research” projects were approved and not everyone actually learns how good solid research is conducted. Myself included.Technology/Innovation SkillsMy background was in Biomedical Engineering before I went to medical school. Upon going there, I practically lost it all. I found that quite a few of my classmates didn’t even know how to operate computers beyond the basic everyday usage, to the point that every time there was an I.T. issue (such as the projector shutting down) I was called to the front of the class to help fix the issue. Why would doctors need to know anything about technology? Well in an industry where our medical technology continues to grow at such a rapid pace, it would be good for doctors to at least understand how an x-ray, CT scanner, MRI, and Ultrasound machine worked. The surgical tools used in everyday surgeries have gotten so advanced now that we can perform operations that use to take patients weeks to heal now to operations with such small incisions that they heal within a few days. Isn’t that AMAZING?! The thing is we need more doctors who can understand the technology and continue working with engineers to keep innovating! I personally did research with Biomedical Engineers and Doctors during my time in medical school and the #1 frustration I kept hearing from both sides was “Ugh the Engineers don’t understand what us doctors need” and “Ugh the Doctors are so demanding, don’t understand anything about how technology is now.” Hence an interesting gap was born in my eyes.Interestingly enough Texas A&M University has plans to create such a program in creating “Physician Engineers”. If you are interested check it out here: Texas A&M planning to create medical school for physician engineers at Houston Methodist HospitalHealth PolicyMy school was located smack dab in the heart of Washington D.C. the nations capital. Health policy is currently an optional track program where students can actually go to Capitol Hill and get very very involved if they want to. This was an amazing opportunity offered. But again I stress this is OPTIONAL. This freaks me out because a lot of people graduating from medical school don’t know anything about how health policy works, how it is lobbied, and how to make change. This explains why there aren’t that many doctors on Capitol Hill.The scarier thing for me is that to this day…I DON’T COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND HOW HEALTH INSURANCE WORKS. And I ran the student run clinic at my institution. We often deferred to the social workers or the business department of the hospital. We are never taught how expensive different medications are, how patients get billed, how we can lower costs for patients in general. Heck we don’t even know the different policies, restrictions, and costs it takes to run a clinic or hospital. Again. This is optional. Shocking because I always shuddered at this question I would often get asked from patients “Do you take my health insurance? If not where can I go or what can I do? Because I really need help now.”How to find a job if one decides to do anything other than directly become a practicing physicianTo give everyone some statistics (and these numbers come from the National Residency Match Program a.k.a NRMP themselves and you can see them here: Press Release: Results of 2016 NRMP Main Residency Match Largest on Record as Match Continues to Grow). Over the last four years there has been a 10.6% increase in the number of U.S. Allopathic Medical Students graduating. Hitting an all time high of 18,668! Such a wonderful accomplishment that we should be proud of! Especially with the incoming doctor shortage that the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) has done studies on in 2016 estimating a shortage of 61,700-94,700 physicians by 2025. (If you are interested look here: GME Funding and Physician Workforce). Now here is the other issue. We are opening more medical schools, but the RESIDENCY (doctors in training) positions are not growing as quickly. Take a look at this image:This is published data from the latest match which you can look at here if you are interested: http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Main-Match-Results-and-Data-2016.pdfNotice how the two lines aren’t getting closer together? Well the purple line is the number of doctors in training positions available. The green line is the number of people who graduated with M.D.s whether from this country or not applying for those spots. So we keep making more schools and having more potential applicants, but we aren’t increasing the number of spots available for training which is a required part of training doctors. I think we can all see the problem here. Still not convinced? Take a look at this graph:Registered Applicants up 1,036. Active applicants (those who got interviews and went to interview then selected a list of places they wanted to go to) up 571. Program positions? Up 538. Notice it’s smaller than those first two numbers. Active Seniors 18,187 up from last year. Matched Seniors 17,057 up from last year. % Positions filled by Seniors 61.2% DOWN from last year. Also take notice that the number of active seniors went up 162, but the number of matched seniors went up 125. That’s 37 seniors lacking in matching. Critics will say that there are numerous factors for this, and I whole-heartedly agree, but where the heck are these seniors going? In addition isn’t it worrisome that there are 1,130 UNMATCHED seniors??? This is only U.S. graduates, not even including those from Doctors of Osteopathic Medical Schools, U.S. citizens trying to come home from Carribbean Schools, and International Medical Graduates. For which the numbers are far worse and can hover down to 40–50%.Now what are these seniors suppose to do in the mean time or if they want to do something related to medicine but not be a clinical physician? Unfortunately having an M.D. degree doesn’t qualify you for a wide range of jobs that something like an M.B.A might qualify you for. At least not that I am aware of (I would love for someone with insight to comment on this), but from personal experience myself it is hard to figure out what jobs I can get with an M.D. degree solely because my education has only trained me to be a doctor. There is so much talent wasted, and there is so much about the healthcare field that needs to be fixed that I am shocked there isn’t more education and resources to get these graduates to other jobs/opportunities that can help the healthcare field in general. I am saying this after I spoke to 12 different physicians AND after going to my career center at my institution who could not advise me on what I could do with just an M.D. degree other than go to residency. Scary and disheartening if I do say so myself.7. How to stay physically healthy and have good mental hygieneIn medical school you are constantly under a stressful environment. This is something that no one ever seems to talk about. There was a survey based study done by Goebert et al. which showed that of more than 2,000 medical students and residents surveyed who responded (with an 89% response rate) 12% had probably MAJOR depression and 9.2% had probably mild/moderate depression. (study here: Depressive symptoms in medical students and residents: a multischool study.) Now this study isn’t perfect, and there are numerous flaws with a survey based design such as response bias, but the fact that 21.2% of medical students and residents had potential DEPRESSION with some having suicidal ideation should worry all of us. Having an incidence of disease of 5% makes the entire medical community react, why not 21.2%? The one phrase that medical schools LOVE saying is “Welcome. You will now be learning as if you are drinking from a fire hose.” I personally hate that phrase and think there is something fundamentally wrong with how you are teaching when that is how you start off your educational journey.It is estimated that about 300–400 physicians die annually from suicide. That is an average that means that about one doctor will die A DAY from a preventable cause. Which personally scares me. Especially since we are always talking about the “Physician Shortage.” The new CDC report notes that: “In 1999, the age-adjusted rate of suicide was 10.5 per 100,000 of the population. In 2014, it was 13.0, representing an overall rise of 24% The rate increased by 1% per year from 1999-2006, and then doubled to 2% after that” That means that each year there are 41,457 suicides in the United States alone (I used the current 2014 population data of the US having 318.9 million people). Mental health is extremely important. Poor mental hygiene costs lives. To put this into perspective a little bit Ebola in 2014 costed 4,033 deaths according to the CDC. That means more than 10 times the number of people are killing themselves each year. (And please note, I am not claiming that suicide is any more or less devastating than Ebola, lives lost are all equally saddening to me). (Here are links for these topics: Medical student suicide: It's impact is devastating. This case proves it., petition: Stop the suicide epidemic in medical schools and residency programs!). Physician Burn-out is very real, and something that many people are trying to work on.8. The actual entire process of what is expected to happen into medical school and residency and beyondThis to me is the funniest thing that ends up happening in medical school which is something that I have heard from numerous sources. Many just had to sort of figure out how medical school plays out as they went along. When we all enter medical school many of us didn’t know that there was a licensing examination that was broken up into 3 parts that is needed before we are allowed to practice (Step 1, Step 2, Step 3). And for those that did, they weren’t sure of when those tests would be taken, unless they were fortunate enough to have someone in the family who had been through the process before. In addition, many of us are not informed that you need to know what kind of doctor you want to be by the end of 3rd year because you have to know before you apply for residency since it is a large headache to switch from one specialty to another and it can even be nearly impossible to (for example if you wanted to switch from a primary care practice of family medicine to Orthopedic surgery or Ophthalmology). Most of us learn of these things either from the school or through word of mouth as we are going along. Mainly because we are so overwhelmed with trying to learn the medical knowledge, trying to plot your career path for the rest of our lives is something most of us aren’t even thinking about…but we should be because well…it’s the career path for the REST OF OUR LIVES. Note this may sound grossly exaggerated, but ask any doctor how hard it is to switch from one specialty field to another in the case interest changes, and you will be surprised at how hard it truly is. I have met very motivated physicians who really wanted to switch and basically had to start back at square one as a resident physician and work their way back up, that is if they get into any of the already limited residency positions.These are a few of the personal things that I have observed are missing. Again this is MY personal experience with MY institution, I can’t say that this is how it feels everywhere, but I have spoken to numerous friends at at least 10 different institutions who agree that they felt the same way as well. This includes individuals who decided to leave medical school altogether because of some of these issues.Phew, now this was an extremely extremely long post. I hope that it was at least somewhat helpful, thank you for reading all the way through. If I came off as just a complainer, I apologize because that is not what I wanted to do at all. These are observations that I have made as someone who is extremely passionate about education with an extensive background in it. I am personally trying to find a job in medical education as well currently so that I hope to be able to make some changes to the field. If anyone has any comments or questions please don’t hesitate to ask! I love to answer :)Thanks again for reading and have a great one! It would mean so much to me if you could up-vote this post and share it as well if you find it helpful because I really want to shed more light on the path to becoming a doctor and the medical system in general. It is such an important topic for even those who don’t want to be doctors to understand since we all eventually get involved in the medical system one way or another.Thank you so much once again.

I just remembered that I never answered this, although God knows I've spilled enough of my life story (and my guts) all over this site that of the people interested enough to read this, most will already know a lot of it.I was born in Baltimore, Maryland to American-born Greek-American parents. My mother's people were from Sparta and my father's people from the islands. Three of my grandparents were born in Greece; my mother's mother was born in Pittsburgh to a Greek-born father and a Polish-born mother.[There's a legend in my family (I hope it's true) that my mother's mother's mother left Poland as a teenager because she was running away from anarranged marriage to a coal miner twice her age. Whatever happened, shemade her way to Reading, Pennsylvania, where she got a job in a Greekrestaurant and met my great-grandfather, who was an itinerant puppeteer and looked like Cary Grant (seriously). They got married and embarked on a lifestyle that involved her staying at home for weeks or months while he went out on the road, touring from one Greek coffeehouse to another with hismarionettes. He would return home long enough to knock her up and thengo out on the road again.]My mother died in January 2013, just a few weeks before her 83rd birthday. Here she is on her 82nd birthday.My dad is 90. If Mom had survived another few months they would have celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary in June 2013.My dad is a retired electrician who owned a small appliance store when I was a little girl, then foresaw the dominance of the big box stores (realizing he could not compete with a local store called Luskin's) and got a job as a troubleshooter at the big Bethlehem Steel plant in Sparrows Point, Maryland. He retired in 1984. My mom was the office manager at an insurance agency until I was born, then stayed home for about ten years, then took a part-time job, but basically dedicated herself to my brother and me.My brother is four years younger than I am. I despised him when he was born but for many years he has been very dear to me, and his 13 year old daughter Christina is one of the joys of my life. Unfortunately I live in Oregon and pretty much my whole family live in Maryland, so I don't see them more than three or four times a year, which can be hard sometimes. This is my brother and me, taken by Christina, on his birthday a few years ago. (She and I made the cake.)I'm very happily married to a guy I went to college with, Mike Radway. We were together as a committed couple for 26 years before we got married, and knew each other as friends for six years before that. During the time before we got married we got asked a lot of questions about how long we'd been together and I always used to enjoy responding, "Since the Carter Administration, although we met during the Nixon Administration."Stephanie V's answer to Do long-distance relationships work?Here is our wedding photo. We were married at the Multnomah County Courthouse. I'm glad no one ever called my mother's attention that I wore black (she's seen the photos of course, but in her relief that I was finally married she didn't pay much attention to the details).Not only did I manage to find an excellent life partner, he has a great family who have always welcomed me warmly into whatever events or activities I happened to be doing with them. I know many people can't say the same about their own in-laws and I feel very fortunate.When I was an adolescent I always assumed that I'd never get married, partly because I couldn't imagine ever wanting to marry anyone, and partly because I didn't feel like wife material. I am a slob and an terrible housekeeper. I'm not much of a cook (although I'm improving). I knew I didn't want to have children. I knew I would never want to change my name. Etc. However, the one time I tried to discuss these feelings with my mother I only succeeded in freaking her out because when I spoke the words, "I'm just not the kind of girl boys marry," she ran with that in a whole different direction. I figured it out later.Because I am a firstborn my mother had no idea I was a little weirdo when I started reading at about age 2.5. She just assumed this was how it went. We didn't have public kindergarten, so when she took me (just turned 6) to sign up for first grade they told her I had to take a reading readiness test. When she told them I'd been reading for years they didn't believe her until I started reading all the forms they had printed out for the parents, at which point I got to meet the principal, got sent for testing to the Baltimore County Board of Education, and got skipped into the second grade. So I was always a year younger than my classmates, all through school.I was never much good at sports but I was really good at pretty much everything in school, and I especially loved math, at least until I ran into second year algebra (the only D I ever got) and got scared off. I took five years of French and a lot of English and social studies classes instead. I got involved in student government, became the VP of my junior class and then the president of the student council. I was most likely to succeed and all that. My mother wanted me to stay in Baltimore and go to Goucher College (which was all female in those days). I wanted to go away, and I knew that if I was going to get my parents to accept it I needed to get into a major brand name school. I got into Yale, Harvard, Cornell, Goucher, and two other schools. Most first generation Greek-American fathers in 1973 would never have supported the idea of a daughter going to Yale. I had some financial aid and a bursary job but my parents came through with the money for me to go.Yale was a transformative experience for me.Stephanie V's answer to How has higher education changed your life?Stephanie V's answer to What does it feel like to attend a world-renowned university?For my senior essay in American Studies I decided to write about the Black Sox scandal. I called up the most notorious baseball fan on the Yale faculty, A. Bartlett Giamatti, and asked him to advise it. He agreed. A few months later he was elected President of Yale, but he insisted on keeping his commitment. Working on it with him was a great experience.After Yale I managed to land my dream job as an executive trainee with MLB (business).Stephanie V's answer to Is it really possible to make your own luck?While I worked as Manager of Waivers and Player Records for the American League, I went to law school in the evenings at Fordham. I graduated from Fordham in 1985 and lucked into something great. There was a new Commissioner, Peter Ueberroth. Peter didn't like lawyers but he did like professional women, and he created a new Assistant General Counsel position for me in the Commissioner's Office, so I could stay on. This was a huge break for me, and I'll always be grateful to him for it.In 1988-89 when it started to seem that moving on from MLB might be a good idea, Bart (who by then was National League President and would soon be Commissioner) introduced me to his Yale classmate Donald Dell. Donald was a former US Davis Cup captain and had started the first sports agency specializing in representing tennis players, ProServ. His first two clients were Arthur Ashe and Stan Smith. By the late 80s ProServ had branched out into other sports and represented hundreds of athletes including Michael Jordan, Patrick Ewing, Greg LeMond, Boomer Esiason, James Worthy, Dominique Wilkins, and tennis players like John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Stefan Edberg, and Gabriela Sabatini. I worked for Donald for eight years. A major highlight of that time was in 1990 when ProServ was hired to represent the merchandising rights to Nelson Mandela's first US visit, after his release from Robben Island. (When Mandela was released from prison, Arthur Ashe was the first person he asked to meet, and Arthur helped us get a meeting to pitch the business.) A colleague and I ran the merchandising program. It was thrilling.The licensee in the Bay Area was Winterland Productions. I flew out to San Francisco and appeared on local TV with the head of artist licensing at Winterland to urge people to buy only the officially licensed t-shirts, etc.In 1995 I was elected to the Board of Directors of the Sports Lawyers Association, and still serve as a director, and now as a member of the Executive Committee.I was recruited to Nike (company) in 1997 and worked there for almost 14 years. I was originally recruited to do sports marketing deals but lucked into an opportunity to start building Nike's global product safety team and infrastructure in a serious way in about 1999, and ran with it.In that job I built a global multidisciplinary virtual team that only saw each other perhaps twice a year, but which met weekly to deal with existing issues and plan out the mechanisms by which we hoped to prevent future issues. We traveled to Asia and Europe to give and receive trainings. We visited the European Parliament and the Chinese product safety authorities in Shanghai. We managed the occasional product recall and worked with product designers and developers to avoid future recalls. I served on the ethics committee of the Nike Sport Research Lab and my team and I worked with the NSRL and the product engines to decide how much we were willing to promise by way of product performance claims based on their work. I worked with amazingly smart people -- chemists, materials scientists, manufacturing gurus, social compliance experts, ESH specialists. My team and I sat through days of toxicology lectures to elevate our understanding of consumer allergies, sensitivities, and other chemical safety issues. I took a special two-week training course called "PS72 Shoe School" in 2000 and learned how to brief, design, spec/develop, cost out, and build an athletic shoe. Those two weeks (one in Oregon, one in Korea and China) will always be a highlight of my life. I can't ever remember learning so much in such a short time.Between 1997 and 2009, in partnership with the staff on the business side, I also papered and negotiated literally billions of dollars in sports marketing deals. My principal sports of concentration were tennis, golf, baseball, and some Olympic sports. I worked on every piece of Nike sports marketing business related to Lance Armstrong for 12 years, including setting up the "LiveStrong" wristband promotion and getting it legally qualified in the 20 states that regulate that kind of fundraising. Last I heard more than 70 million yellow wristbands had been sold. I'm sure it's closer to 100 million now. I worked on Nike's product supply and sponsorship agreements with Ohio State, University of Washington, University of North Carolina System, and other schools. I worked on Nike's deals with scores of athletes. I've been called a bitch by at least two agents representing athletes you've heard of. I also have had very warm relationships with people who represented athletes under contract to Nike.http://www.quora.com/Stephanie-Vardavas/My-Posts/I-just-learned-that-my-friend-Keven-Davis-died-on-Friday-nightIn 2009 Nike had major layoffs after which I was repurposed as a trademark lawyer, a specialty I had last practiced 20 years earlier, at MLB (although at MLB we did licensing and at Nike we did clearance and prosecution [registration] of trademarks). After a few more departmental reorgs I found myself involuntarily retired. I won't say I had no idea about what to do next. Rather, I had too many ideas about what to do next. I started working on a couple of patents, which I'm still working on, but I thought I wanted to get a new job. At first I thought I'd try to get a job in the technology field, which has fascinated me since the first time my friend Jim HendlerWho is James Hendler?first showed me the World Wide Web in 1995.Stephanie V's answer to What was the first website you built, and in what year did you build it?I applied for jobs at [tech startup A], [tech startup B], [tech pioneer], and [tech survivor], got a couple of phone interviews, and that was it. I realized as I scanned the various job listings that nobody wanted to hire a lawyer with my amount of experience. So I knew I was going to have to take charge of my own path from then on. I remembered that ten years earlier I had thought about becoming a mediator after I retired. Now was my chance.I took almost 100 hours of training as a mediator and embarked on a new career. I've also done some consulting in product safety, the work I loved most when I worked for Nike. But none of it felt exactly right. Finally the light bulb went on for me when I hit a million miles on United Airlines and realized I had never owned a carry-on bag that I really liked. I connected with a former Nike colleague who is an expert in materials and a new company, row99.com, was born.In 2011 the Governor of Oregon appointed me to the Oregon Commission for Women, and I was elected Chair in 2012. My service on the Commission has been a great experience so far. My fellow Commissioners are really smart, capable women, and the work we do is important.I'm politically activeStephanie V's answer to What is it like to host a political fundraising dinner at your house?Stephanie V's answer to What is it like to be a delegate at an American presidential nominating convention?and cut my teeth in local politics as a library advocate, with six years on the board of directors and two years as President of the Friends of Multnomah County Library. I was also one of the founding board members of EMERGE Oregon (a 501c4 that trains Democratic women to run for office). I spent Election Day 2008 as a voter protection volunteer at a polling place in Albuquerque. I have absolutely zero ambition to hold elective office myself, and happily neither does Mike. We don't want that kind of life. (That's us with the late Elizabeth Edwards. We spent a day driving her around in June 2007 when she came to Portland to campaign for her husband. I'll always be grateful for the time we spent with her, but if I'd known what a dick he was I would never have supported him, so I guess I'm glad I didn't know, or I would never have met her.)And here we are with Congressman John Lewis, a real honest-to-God hero.Like seemingly 95% of Quorans, I have an idea for a startup. I don't have the technical skills to execute on it but the service would have immediate value to some very big ecommerce companies so I keep telling myself I need to figure out how to find someone to work on it with me and make it happen; I'll be really sad if someone else gets to it before I do. I've been researching prior art at the USPTO to decide whether I should try to get a business process patent to give me some protection while I try to implement it. I'm not a natural born entrepreneur but I've been in the business world for more than 30 years and learned a few things along the way.Random miscellaneous crap about me:I love Jane Austen (author), Star Wars, Leonard Cohen, Elton John, The Beatles (band), and lots of other music, including Baroque Music and Opera. I love Musicals. I am both an Anglophile and a Francophile, although some believe those two things to be mutually exclusive. I love Star Wars (creative franchise). My favorite animal is the Sheep, but I was born in the Year of the Monkey. I love Monty Python and I know I should love Firesign Theatre, but I never got into it.Going to law school at night broke my TV habit. Today I watch very little television, and the only thing I watch live is sports and awards shows like the Oscars, or other kinds of breaking news. On Tivo I watch all three US major network news shows, The Big Bang Theory (TV series), The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report. On DVD I recently finished a 19 hour Downton Abbey (TV series) marathon and have dived into the Q&A here.I love Architecture and would have considered becoming an architect if it weren't for all the math. %^>I love the Baltimore Orioles, and have since I was a very little girl. I care about the Yale Bulldogs and have learned to love the Baltimore Ravens almost as much as my father and brother do. In the National League I've always liked the Philadelphia Phillies and the San Francisco Giants.The National Basketball Association (NBA) has never interested me all that much but I do love college hoops (I was raised a fan of the Maryland Terrapins; one of the biggest thrills I had working for ProServ was the opportunity to spend a little time with John Lucas, whom I really loved as a player, who later had terrible drug problems, and who got clean and is now very successful).I have no artistic talent to speak of, but I can take pretty good photos, and I used to be good at sewing. I could make professional looking coats and suits. My sewing skills are now long atrophied. I bought a fancy new electronic sewing machine six years ago and have never used it. I can still hem things by hand and sew on buttons, and I enjoy doing that kind of thing for my husband; it helps me delude myself into feeling domestic.I read widely, often nonfiction, especially Biographies and Memoirs. I do reread Austen (luckily she only wrote six books) at least once every couple of years. I recently did deep dives into Henry James (author) and Edith Wharton, who unaccountably has no Quora topic of her own. I'm reading Anna Karenina (1877 book) now for the first time (shocking, I know, but better late than never).I've been to Christmas luncheon at Manchester United. It felt as if I had stepped into outtakes from Love Actually (2003 movie)In 1975 I borrowed Brooks Robinson's uniform for Halloween. That's a whole other story.There's a chapter about me in the book Baseball Lives, by Mike Bryan, and the part relating to Brooks' uniform was excerpted in Sports Illustrated in April 1989 (the issue that had Tony Mandarich on the cover, I forget the date). George Vecsey also wrote a column about the uniform story the weekend Brooks was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.I've stood 50 meters from the finish line of the Tour de France on the Champs Elysées and cried like a baby when they played the Star Spangled Banner for Lance Armstrong as he mounted the podium.In 1990 I went on morning TV in New York City along with Arthur Ashe to talk about the Mandela merchandising program. It was a huge thrill for me.Stephanie V's answer to What are some of the unique (likely hasn’t been done by another Quora member) experiences of Quora community members?I've sat in the Commissioner's box at the World Series, in the owner's (singular) box at Yankee Stadium, in the owners' (plural) box at Fenway Park, and in the Directors' box at Old Trafford. I sat in front of the Rev. Jesse Jackson and one seat over from Harry Belafonte in the House gallery when Mandela addressed a joint session of Congress in 1990.In October 2011 I traveled to Fort Worth, Texas, where I attended in the same week both the World Championships of the International Gay Rodeo Association and the Annual General Meeting of the Jane Austen Society of North America. I am quite certain I am the only person in the world who did this.I've also got three unfinished novels in my hard drive. Perhaps I will finish one of them someday. I hope I'll pick a good one.

This is a much more complicated question than it looks. What follows below is what comes to mind, is unlikely to be well written / formatted / arranged, and will contain quite a fair bit of opinion. Hopefully, with edits, it will get better.First posted: Somewhere in March or April 2015.Last edit: 20160301.Latest changes: MOE now has plans in place to fund post-docs overseas for Singaporean PhDs, and, perhaps more importantly, has committed to allowing the local universities to fund the PhD studies of Singaporeans who are currently in PhD programs abroad and are interested in returning to Singapore as faculty. This may still not be the ideal or best solution efficiency and allocation wise, but I view this as a decent plan towards increasing the number of local faculty in the local universities without overly compromising the research mission of the local universities. However, the selection process must be fair - it remains to be seen if the local universities are biased or have biases in their selection. From what I hear it has been a mixed bag for this year.As such, some parts of the text below may no longer apply and seem out of place when reading the entire text.OVERVIEWI will first try to explain some intricacies of academia and PhDs - without which discussion of any scheme will be lacking, since the problem is not a simple single-faceted one. Then - I look at the local scholarship options, of which there now exist basically two types: one administered by MOE from the undergraduate level and up, and the other by the local universities. I try to explain why these schemes are not optimal. Next, I put forward the argument that there are good Singaporean faculty and graduate students in top universities overseas, and that perhaps we should be looking towards hiring them back. I then discuss the viability of a Singaporean faculty quota and why it is also not optimal. Finally, I discuss other reasons for the decline in Singaporean faculty, and why it is not necessarily that the local universities actively avoid hiring Singaporeans.Again - please note that this note is very disjointed.WHAT IS ACADEMIA?So. Let's begin.First, what do universities do? Most Singaporeans think of universities as educational centers, and perhaps to be more blunt, vocational centers, but to be honest, that is practically the secondary role of most universities now. The main mission of universities in our current age / epoch / (insert other appropriate word here) is, perhaps sadly, academic research, not teaching. As such, when universities commit resources to hiring an assistant professor, who invariably has a PhD, they seek to hire the best researcher they can get, and not necessarily the best teacher. Teaching can be made up by dedicated teaching faculty (lecturers) - or at least, that is how many university administrators view teaching.Second, what do professors do? When a university hires an assistant professor, he / she is given a 6-8 year window in which he / she has to build a body of work that would stand scrutiny among his / her peers - such that a well-respected professor in his / her field would look at his / her body of research work and say, yes, that person is worthy of tenure. Tenure, simply put, is a job for life (though in Singapore that ends when the academic turns 65 or whatever the retirement age is or will be...), and is what most research faculty work towards. One thing to also be aware of is that the local university systems are somewhat still in the transition process from a teaching focus to a research focus. Still - one point is important here: when we talk about faculty, academia mainly thinks of research faculty, not teaching faculty, and this is the main focus of my answer. Research faculty is also generally the first priority for the local universities hiring-wise.As such - the local university system is somewhat muddled in that when the general populace think of faculty, they think mainly of the teaching aspect. Viewed in that lens, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that it is reasonable to apply a local quota. I will discuss this later on.A SHORT NOTE ON WHAT A PHD IS...One common misconception among Singaporeans is that a PhD is just another degree. That might be true in some departments and schools (I'm looking at degree mills such as Ashland University, Preston University, Wisconsin International University), but generally the PhD involves taking high level classes for the first couple of years, after which the student has to demonstrate proficiency in the field by passing an examination (or two) that covers part (or most) of the field that their PhD is in. For example, my experience in a Finance doctoral program: at the end of my first year I would have to take a general exam on Microeconomics and Econometrics - basically two 3.5 hour exams in one day, fully open ended; at the end of my second year, I would have to take another general exam on Corporate Finance and Asset Pricing - a sample question might be to flesh out a summary and timeline of all major existing research on Capital Structure Theory, which means that I would have to remember all the major papers on that - that would only be one question out of 10 or so! After these exams, the student must demonstrate research ability by completing at least one original piece of research that advances knowledge of their field. This is the type of PhD that is usually a pre-requisite for a local faculty position in one of our local universities.Also, another common misconception: in general, most reputable PhD programs provide funding to their admitted students. The funding generally covers school fees, and usually a stipend for living expenses that is dependent on the student taking on research or teaching assistant work. Some programs are however not as well funded and may only be able to provide a lower level of funding. Other programs may also choose to admit some students with full funding, and offer unfunded admissions to other candidates that they do not feel that strongly attracted to. On the other hand, quite a few UK and European PhD programs are fully fee-based, and you have to pay in order to attend. That brings up the issue of the general differences between American and European PhDs that I would rather not go into at the moment given the question being answered here.WHY HIRE LOCAL? HOW DOES IT AFFECT THE UNIVERSITY?Now, with all that in mind, does it make sense for any university to commit to hiring people of a certain type with no consideration for how that might impact their mission? For example, if NUS announced that they would commit to hiring only left-handed faculty members, would that make sense? This may be a logical extreme, but I think it is somewhat indicative of the issue.Whether or not it makes sense boils down to the question of what we want from our local universities. Do we want them to be world-class universities like Harvard, Princeton, MIT, and the like, where their research is indeed world class, or something else? Most would say yes please to a world class university, but then also argue for a strong Singaporean presence within the university. Unfortunately, however, these two aims are not necessarily congruent! As another answer has mentioned, we simply do not have the population mass to reasonably meet both aims.So - research. Since universities seek to hire the best research faculty they can get, then it also stands to reason that research faculty will also seek to get the best job package they can get. If there is a well-qualified Singaporean PhD (SPhD) who can get a job at a school like the University of Texas or the University of North Carolina (you will be surprised how many Singaporeans have never heard of these schools and therefore think of them as questionable schools), it does not make sense for him or her to move to one of the Singaporean universities, all things considered, unless he / she has a severe preference for returning to Singapore. As another commenter mentioned, it is well-known that Singaporean faculty in the local universities (at least, NUS) have a smaller compensation package compared to their foreign counterparts, primarily on the child education support and housing portions of the compensation package. As such, the local faculty position becomes less attractive on the compensation metric to Singaporeans - don't forget we do have a rather high cost of living as well!The local universities also suffer from being far away from many other universities and major conferences, among other disadvantages, which could limit the research network of their faculty. This is a major consideration for faculty since research output is currency in academia. Additionally, it also makes more sense for a fresh SPhD to get a job in the USA, build up a research CV, and then go back to Singapore, if he / she wants to. As I will discuss shortly, there are also many schools that are viewed of as being better research schools than those in Singapore, despite what the rankings usually trotted out by the local universities say - and the people making the hiring decisions in the local universities (which are usually the other faculty members) know what's what. So - with a firmed up CV, track record, as well as potentially prior employment at an esteemed institution, he / she can get better offers and have leverage if he / she wants to return, and don't forget that by doing so he / she can extend the tenure clock somewhat! Hence, there is usually little reason for a SPhD to come back to Singapore immediately after his / her PhD, and if the SPhD does well, he / she might choose to never come back at all.Still, it is important to note that there are not many Singaporeans in PhD programs overseas in the first place! For example, in my field (Finance), I do not yet know of any other Singaporean PhD student in a top 50 Finance department in a Business School, though there are apparently a couple that focus on Financial Economics in Economics departments. Other fields might be more populated with Singaporeans, of course - like in Economics and Psychology, as well as the sciences, given how A*Star have had PhD scholarship programs for a while. And what about our local PhD programs? Now, let's take out those who are on government scholarships for PhD programs such as experienced MOE teachers or people on A*Star scholarships... there aren't that many left!Now - why might Singaporeans not be interested in an academic career? Basically, most young Singaporeans might have no interest in doing a PhD for various reasons, such as:One, most Singaporeans have no interest in studying any more after their bachelors degree - I suppose it's a kind of lethargy, which is / has been possibly exacerbated by how our education system is heavily dependent on rote learning.Two, a PhD takes on average about six years, depending on field, which means a significant period of low earnings, which may or may not be made up with future earnings post-PhD, again depending on field...Three, the outcome after a PhD is very uncertain, considering how competitive the job market is and how scarce tenure-track positions are. Heck, quite a few of my classmates who went to the finance industry after graduating with me from SMU undergrad make close to or about 6 figures a year. In comparison, a Singaporean post-doc I met here in Seattle recently told me that if he went back to NUS / NTU, he would make about 80 to 90k SGD a year. In the eyes of most Singaporeans, that is extremely bo-hua (not worth it).Fourth, many Singaporeans are under the somewhat false impression that they have to PAY for the PhD, when in fact the truth is that most reputable PhD programs provide both a tuition waiver and a stipend in return for teaching / research assistant duties. That said, some PhD programs do not come with funding - for example, quite a few of those in the UK and Europe.Fifth, the PhD is not that easily attainable - passing your exams is not sufficient, you need to come up with an original piece of research that passes muster, which is much harder than what it looks like! This is contrary to much of how our education system works, and might be a major stumbling block (as it is for me at the moment with my struggles with my dissertation).So - there is a relatively low supply of SPhDs. Then add the fact that universities have to hire for specific departments and in specific research areas. If Bayern Munich already has 20 midfielders, then does it make sense to buy an 21st, even if the 21st midfielder is German? It is not clear that this is the case. The universities will seek to have the best available talent fit join their departments. It is also entirely possible that the reason why the universities aren't considering any particular SPhD for a position is because that SPhD just isn't good enough or does not have the potential - like how that 21st midfielder, even though he is German, isn't good enough because he is playing badly for a 3.Bundesliga team, or even in one of the amateur leagues.Of course, there might be an argument for having local expertise in our universities. That could certainly make sense, but I dare say that is only for some fields such as law, or Singaporean history. Most of the other fields are more international in outlook - economics, psychology, finance, engineering, and so on, where a Singaporean perspective simply does not add any or adds very little value research wise. Do we want to be world class in only those fields that need local knowledge, or just simply world class per se? In many fields this much vaunted local knowledge is not necessary for impactful research. This is why I feel that some of the comments by local faculty interviewed in Wanted: Local talent in varsities over-sell the value of this vaunted Singaporean perspective. I find this local knowledge argument unsatisfying, to be honest. How has it stopped academics who are not of a certain type from becoming experts in other types? If we were we take it to logical extremes: Jack Horner (who actually did not even complete his Bachelor's degree) and dinosaurs; Jane Goodall and chimpanzees; Dian Fossey and gorillas; and perhaps more closely Ernest Satow and Japan. Do we need to be a cook in order to be able to taste?Still, we could want more locals in local academic positions, but let's also at least realise that there are potential downfalls that discourage local academics from returning home. For example, if a tenure-track faculty at one of our local universities does not get tenure, how likely is it that he / she can get another similar job at another school? Most of the departments in the three local universities are similarly ranked. If the person did not get tenure at one place, it is unlikely that he / she will be able to get a similar position at the other two main local universities, and in Singapore there is still very much a stigma associated with failure that makes it even harder. In contrast, the job market in America for PhDs is much larger, with a larger and wider distribution of schools, so even if he / she does not make he / she can still be reasonably certain of alternative employment as long as he / she has some papers. The likely outcome is for faculty members in Singapore who do not get tenure is that the faculty member has to find a job elsewhere overseas (which is very hard to do!), in a polytechnic, or become a non-tenure track faculty member. In contrast, fall back options in the States are likely to be more numerous - more lower ranked schools, a larger industry demand, and less focus on degree specificity.Also note that the job market in Singapore for PhDs is not large - there is a misconception that a PhD makes you immensely desirable employment wise following the whole paper makes you better idea, but honestly, in Singapore, it usually just marks the person out as over-qualified, especially for non-academic jobs. There is significant job risk for PhDs in Singapore, to be honest, but not many understand this.One question that I hear relatively often: why do the local universities not hire their own PhDs? The main reason is to avoid what some faculty call academic inbreeding - they want their faculty to bring along with them a new perspective to their departments, and bringing in their own PhDs rarely provides this since they have trained in the perspective that their departments already have. Another reason is that in general, schools will try to hire fresh PhD graduates from schools ranked above them, so as to improve the "quality" and network of their faculty and research - hiring from their own PhD programs does not make sense then since that would just double down on what they already have. And even if our universities are ranked highly on some ranking, it does not mean that our PhD degrees have the same level of prestige as PhDs are also highly dependent on the advisor.Another related point of contention that has popped up previously is why the local universities give so many places in their PhD programs to foreigners. The usual theory being offered that there is some conspiracy against Singaporeans (basically a continuation of the rather favourable scholarship program for foreign talents at the undergrad level), but in my experience this is not true at the PhD level. What I have seen is that the local PhD programs are usually inundated with applications from abroad because Singapore is still considered an upgrade over many countries, and, perhaps more importantly, the Singaporeans who seek to do a PhD and are good candidates for it already know that their best option is to do it abroad, where most of the good programs are, rather than stay in Singapore. Then the problem reduces to a simpler one for the local PhD programs: after taking the good local applicants (as limited in number as they are), should they go for the good foreign PhD students or, to be honest, relatively lacking remaining local PhD students? Some will say to not take in the foreigners at all, but faculty do find it very helpful to have research and teaching assistants, and research is harder than it looks - many hands make it easier.So, in short - why are there so few Singaporean faculty members in the local universities? Basically, there are too few SPhDs to begin with, and then when you consider the number of those who are interested in staying in academia and willing to come back... it gets really small. Then add in the requirements of the universities and the other intricacies of academia... it does not get any easier!Regardless - let's at least recognise that the problem is not as simple as what some of the other responses to this question here thus far treat it to be.PHD SCHOLARSHIP OPTIONS - MOE-AUNow, with regards to scholarship schemes, especially the ones mentioned in response to other answers. In particular, I would like to discuss the MOE-AU undergraduate scholarship and the Senior Tutor and Faculty Development Schemes in place or were in place at some combination of NUS and SMU.One anonymous commenter lauded the MOE-AU undergraduate scholarship, claiming that the situation for local faculty in the local universities has gotten so terrible that MOE has had to step in. I do not agree, and as for why...Let's start with looking at the scholarship. From what I understand, the MOE-AU scholarship basically works like this: first, MOE selects a scholar who has just completed their A levels, sends him / her for undergrad, and then the scholar has to apply for a scholarship from the local universities to go do a PhD.To me, this does not make sense. Why is MOE selecting the scholar, instead of the university? Does MOE have some magic ability to pick such scholars from their administration of other government scholarships? One would think that the universities may have a better idea of traits and skills that they want, so I hope that the universities are given some space to give feedback on the choice of scholar, and from what I have heard, this is usually the case. However, aptitude at the A levels does not necessarily translate to aptitude at the PhD level - Professor Shih Choon Fong, former president of NUS was a graduate of Singapore Poly, for what it’s worth - so there is still that issue with how this scheme may shape our local faculty to be of a similar background, though I suppose that isn't something we are unaccustomed to seeing.Further, the local universities already do not use their local talent development schemes - the Education Minister stated in parliament that only 17 and 3 people have been sponsored by NUS and SMU for PhD students overseas since 2008 (see Wanted: Local talent in varsities - note: surely this contradicts the comments on another answer that the NUS overseas scholarship scheme was abolished in the mid-2000s). This means that the pool of qualified and willing-to-be-bonded (very important distinction here, as I bring up the adverse selection issue later on) candidates that the local universities will consider is small - so it is reasonable for MOE to think they can increase it by 10-15 scholars a year with this scheme from the undergraduate level? The data shows 20 in total from 2008 to 2014, which is an average of about 3-4 a year - so, unless MOE is thinking of getting a 20-30% PhD program placement success rate, the implicit goals of the scholarship seems unrealistic. Further, given that most PhD programs provide full financial aid, I don't think financial needs are the main obstacle for aspiring PhDs - so why commit students to a scheme that does not necessarily need a PhD scholarship from the very beginning?Additionally, the academic career is vastly different from the typical job (I have some years to look back on - so I think I could at least speak with some authority on this) that I cannot fathom of a 18 to 21 year old knowing for sure that he or she wants to be an academic without proper research exposure. In Singapore, undergrads rarely get such exposure, and pre-university students, even less so! I had no idea until halfway through my undergraduate career, and that was even with a very encouraging faculty member who supported my endeavours. Most of my classmates had no interest or exposure whatsoever. Two Singaporean academics have also argued against this scholarship on these lines - see "Five reasons to rethink MOE-AU scholarship" for a more eloquent treatment of this line of argument.Also - even current PhD students, whom we can reasonably assume have a better idea of their quality and motivation for working towards a PhD than these pre-university graduates and university undergraduates, struggle with their PhD studies. This was highlighted in a letter to the ST forum ("Invest in current PhD students"): "one-fifth of PhD students quit their programmes within the first four years ... Only slightly less than half complete their PhD within seven years." This data is from the Council of Graduate Schools' Ph.D. Completion project (CGS Ph.D. Completion Project Quantitative Data). Given this, how do we expect that these scholars, who hardly have any exposure to academic research, understand what they are getting into? Or will they end up having to complete the PhD because they have to, rather than because they are suited to or want to do so? What happens if they do not?Furthermore, this scholarship is expensive - 9 years of school fees and allowances, which I estimate will be nearly half a million nominal, non-time adjusted USD at 55K USD per year. Specifically, let's say 30K for school fees, given that the scholar will be a foreigner at their PhD institution, 25K for living expenses and the like, at an exchange rate of 1.35 SGD to 1 USD, which results in 74K SGD a year - committed upfront just to have a Singaporean faculty member that may end up to be an unsuccessful academic researcher. There are also other costs to keep in mind, and the estimate for the school fees is likely to be on the low side. Note that I am implicitly assuming here that the taxpayer is responsible for both scholarships, undergrad and PhD - even though the local universities are paying only half of the cost of the PhD according to the MOE press release for the scholarship ("Helping Young Singaporeans Jumpstart into a Career in Academia").If we instead assume that the cost covered by the local universities is not ultimately paid by taxpayers, the cost to MOE and hence the taxpayers is still 4 years of undergrad + 2.5 years of the PhD assuming that the PhD program takes on average 5 years to complete - basically, a total cost of about 357.5K USD for MOE and 137.5K for the local university, or about 482K SGD and 186K SGD respectively at the 1.35 exchange rate used above. Admittedly, this ignores the time value of money, but these are still significant sums!In contrast, the universities can hire a qualified research faculty member, or at least someone that we have a better idea about the true quality of, off the job market with ZERO upfront cost, so the university is spending money it did not need to spend - which is particularly more questionable given the recent news about how the MOE has had problems administering their loan schemes. Also, recall that most PhD programs provide funding to the people they admit, so we are getting the local universities and MOE to pay for 5 years of school fees and scholarships costs that they did not actually have to pay in the first place. How is that a responsible use of tax-payer money, if what we want is qualified SPhDs in our universities, or if we take the aim of the MOE-AU scholarship at its word - better supporting young Singaporeans interested in an academic career? It feels like throwing money at a problem and hoping it gets solved, or like bringing a sword to a gunfight - basically a case of using the wrong tool for the job...As such - it seems unlikely to me that the MOE-AU undergraduate scholarship as designed at this point in time makes sense. As has been said before in one of the letters to the local newspapers about the scheme: the efficacy of the scholarship is extremely questionable ("Invest in current PhD students"). Unless MOE has some magic formula or algorithm that allows them to beat the market from such an early stage, where the market consists of university department faculty and administrators who are experienced in building an academic department, the undergraduate scholarship looks like a bad initiative.PHD SCHOLARSHIPS FROM THE LOCAL UNIVERISITIESLet's now talk about the PhD scholarship schemes at NUS and / or SMU, since these will arguably form the basis for the PhD scholarship in the MOE-AU scholarship.First, let's talk about the Senior Tutor scheme, which was also mentioned in several other comments: the scheme did indeed serve as a source of local faculty, based on my conversations with some older faculty, except that in that time period the focus was on teaching rather than research. Now, the period where Prof. Shih was in charge of NUS was characterised by a switch from a focus on teaching to research instead, if I am not wrong. Academia, and Singapore academia as a whole, has moved on from the old days of pure instruction. To reiterate: teaching is not exactly a main aim of any top university in our current time, which will generally have a stronger focus on research, and faculty hiring is largely focused on research faculty rather than teaching faculty. The anonymous commenter looks upon it as a source of local faculty, without, I think, considering the full picture. If our aim is to increase the number of Singaporean faculty, then sure - but then will it be teaching or research faculty? Teaching faculty are not permanent, and can be easily replaced since a PhD is not a pre-requisite. Again - what do we want our universities to be? What is more important: world class universities, or simply having more Singaporean faculty? I would be more in favour for the former, not the latter.The rejoinder might be that our universities are already world class based on the rankings, but in this case a more critical eye on the ranking methodology is necessary, especially given the flaws in the past rankings. I would argue that an easier test of the true ranking would be one of revealed preference, whereby you would ask yourself: if you had a child and the child had a choice between a local university, say NUS or NTU (since they were ranked in the top 13 in the world this year by the QS World University Rankings), and a foreign university, and that everything else were equal (cost, homesickness, et cetera), where would you send your child to? Would NUS / NTU come ahead of Yale (QS 15th), Cornell (QS 17th), UPenn (QS 18th), Columbia (QS 22nd), Berkeley (QS 26th), Duke (QS 29th), Michigan (QS 30th), LSE (QS 35th), Carnegie Mellon (QS 62nd), and so on? I think most would rather send their children to these other schools… Revealed preference is a pretty strong indicator of what the true rank of our local universities are - let's cut out all the crap and what not about what some ranking system says. Note also that these are also schools that our government scholars often attend in place of staying in Singapore for their undergraduate studies, so even the government has revealed their preferences.To be specific as to how our rankings in the QS may not be accurate in terms of the quality of education or instruction or research, note that the QS rankings allocates 5% each of the final score to the ratio of international to domestic faculty, as well as the ratio of international to domestic students. Our local universities, as it should be clear, do very well on these two categories. Additionally, the QS ranking uses anonymous survey responses, which could be susceptible to bias. Also, if I remember correctly, in one particular year the QS rankings even treated two separate universities as the same university (UW-Seattle and WUSTL), so even the rankings can have major errors. The lesson here is to not take the rankings as is - recognise the factors that make up the rankings, recognise that the QS rankings can be questionable, and that our local universities do not have a similar level on other rankings, such as ARWU or the US News rankings. By Occam's razor, it would be easier to believe that the QS rankings are flawed.Now, as for the overseas scholarship - there are of course reasons why it is not used that often. Note that all of the following arguments were mentioned directly to me by a local faculty member who served as the chair of his department.First, the cost, as outlined above in the fiscal argument against the MOE-AU scholarship: why pay that huge sum for very little reason other than having a faculty member with a Singaporean passport, if that faculty member is not guaranteed to be able to advance the mission of the university? Remember that there are faculty available at much lower (close to zero or zero) upfront costs.Second, if there is a guarantee of a job after finishing the PhD, there might be less motivation for the scholar to work hard at research. The disciplining factor of the job market is lost - essentially, a moral hazard problem. It is possible that the PhD scholars may be sufficiently motivated by the tenure problem that comes after the PhD such that this problem is mitigated, but it is not clear if this is an acceptable level of risk for the universities.Third, and similarly, it could be argued that there is also an adverse selection problem, in that well-qualified prospective PhD students will not be willing to take up the scholarship (if they know they are good, why take a bond and limit their options, everything else being equal?). Hence, simplistically, the only people who are willing to take on the scholarship are people who are either at the same level as what the university could have hired originally without the scholarship, or worse (separating equilibria, anyone?). Remember that there probably is some form of information asymmetry - the student should have a better idea of his / her own true quality than the scholarship board. All in all, this basically leads to a manifestation of the lemons problem in second-hand car markets outlined in Akerlof (1970), in which the ultimate result is that only bad second-hand cars will be available, and good second-hand cars will not be included in the market by their owners. However, applying this model to the scholarship situation is admittedly purely hypothetical - after all, we might have applicants that have a strong preference to return, perhaps because of their significant others, family commitments, or that they just plain prefer to live in Singapore.Finally, by committing a position to a person who may not be of good quality ahead of time, the university is limiting itself hiring wise, thus potentially hampering their mission of research, research, research. This could have negative effects on the ranking of our local universities on some world university ranking systems, given how research is a considerable factor in many of those rankings. So - ask for more local faculty? Sure! But let's also be at least cognizant that there may be side / after effects. Let's not naively assume that we can just simply flip one switch and everything else will stay exactly as they are at the moment.That said, despite the issues of the scholarship, I would advocate modifying and expanding this scholarship if the aim is to have an expanded Singaporean faculty in our local universities, rather than implementing the MOE-AU undergraduate scholarship. A degree of information asymmetry is avoided by giving scholarships to people who actually want to do a PhD and have a better idea of whether a PhD is for them, and even more so if these people have already passed their qualifying exams before applying for the scholarship. In short, a possible solution would be to have the local universities attract Singaporeans who are already in PhD programs to sign on to mid-term scholarships. This provides a level of filtering for ability, not only because of the qualifying exams, but also because it ensures that these people have gained admission to their PhD program because of their program's assessment of their abilities and not because they already have funding from an external source (in this case, the local universities). This also ensures that applicants have a better idea of what they are getting into. Another benefit is that this potentially allows the taxpayer to save some money. On the other hand, however, these PhD students may also self-select based on what they think their level is, and the local universities could be looking at a pool of decent but not superstar faculty. Based on what I have heard, it seems that MOE has now allowed the local universities to explore this route, but care must be taken to ensure that the selection process is not subverted.EVALUATING THE SCHOLARSHIPSIn short - the scholarship schemes can be costly and risky, and as such, not necessarily a good use of taxpayer monies towards building a strong faculty. While the university level scholarships might still be relevant even after accounting for its shortcomings, the undergraduate scholarship is, in my view, rather questionable. Hence, my opinion is that rather than that MOE had to step in with the MOE-AU undergraduate scholarship to solve a national embarrassment (which seriously, I don't think it is - that is some serious hyperbole!) as a comment on another answer suggested, my view is that the MOE-AU undergraduate scholarship is going to be an additional source of problems rather than a solution.Also keep in mind that if the local universities manage to hold on to the decision making power to give out the scholarships for the PhD, and assuming that MOE does not interfere, they might very well decide not to give any scholarships to the undergraduate scholars for the reasons outlined above. In that case, will the local universities just take on scholars just to pre-empt pressure from MOE? Or will MOE have the ability to pressure the universities to give the scholarships? If so, will we end up with the situation where university departments argue among themselves to NOT have to commit to such scholars? It is not cleaHence, I am not sure that this top-down approach makes sense, given how the first line of hiring comes from the departments. The likely end result of this scheme, as one local faculty member put to me, is the very wasteful "sign and fire after six years" - denoting that they would just take them in, but ruthlessly fire after six years if they do not have a good enough profile after that. Remember, a tenure track / research faculty position only comes with a limited number of years for the person to prove him or herself. Why should we take a less informed bet if we can do better?Additionally, I think one possible source of data on whether such a scholarship like the MOE-AU scholarship could work is to look at A*Star PhD scholarship recipients, since that scholarship and the MOE-AU scholarship are very similar, and the A*Star PhD scholarship has been operating for quite some time. However, care must be taken to consider the fact that the A*Star scholarships are all science related, and may therefore not be generalisable to the many other fields that the MOE-AU scholars will decide on such as the social sciences, since the science fields generally require the completion of a Post-Doc position before the PhD can move on to a faculty position. The data questions should include the following:First, how many A*Star PhD scholars finish their PhDs, return to Singapore, and become full fledged productive academic researchers, rather than administrators or positions not directly involved in research? Keeping in mind that A*Star has several institutes to place their scholars in, compared to the relatively very limited number of tenure-track positions available at the local universities, there might also be a crowding out effect for the MOE-AU scholars that needs to be considered.Second, given how only about half of all PhD students complete their PhD within 7 years, how many A*Star scholars do not get through their PhD? More pointedly, how many of them graduated early due to A*Star's urging rather than their advisor's urging? This might understandably be a sensitive question.Third, how many would still take up the scholarship, given what they know now about a PhD, and why or why not (see the case of Eng Kai Er, for example)? How might the experiences of these scholars inform how and what information should be disseminated to potential scholars considering this scholarship? Will the information sessions include the other side of the coin rather than just a full roster of cheerleaders for the scholarship?I have admittedly only heard anecdotes regarding the A*Star undergraduate PhD scholarship (for example: why have scholars return to Singapore to work for a year after undergrad and before PhD? This has always been a rather baffling practice.) and consequent research productivity - mostly negative, unfortunately, which biases my view of the MOE-AU undergraduate scholarship rather heavily. As such some actual data would be interesting to see, but given how "stingy" the Singaporean ministries and statutory boards are with somewhat sensitive performance type data, I doubt we will ever get to see that.Finally - I am disturbed by how unclear a lot of the procedures are for the MOE-AU undergraduate scholarship, and how much risk the scholars bear given how incomplete the scholarship procedures are. MOE should consider tightening up the terms after asking existing local faculty for their opinion. Some specific examples or situations that I can foresee follow:First, the scholarship directs the scholar to complete their undergraduate and PhD studies in a total of 9 years, but ... given the data, not even half of all PhD students complete their PhDs within 7 years. The norm now is about 6 years. Further, some fields require a Masters degree in order to be competitive as an applicant, so another 1 or 2 years of that 9 years is taken up by that. Perhaps the scholar can simply quickly finish a thesis and PhD ASAP, with reduced concern for the research impact of the thesis, but then how likely is it that this scholar would be completely trained as a researcher? This would be not only detrimental to the scholar, but also for the local university that takes him / her in. I'm sorry - but this suggests to me that the people who designed this scholarship think of a PhD as just being another degree. The danger is that a PhD is usually done when the advisor says you are done, and that is usually when the student finds a job - but here, with a job already in place, the incentives are unclear!Second, it is not clear that the local university departments support such a scheme, based on the concerns I have listed previously. If so, then this scheme would simply be just another regular MOE scholarship, in that without the PhD scholarship, the scholar would ostensibly become just a regular MOE scholar - why is the scholar taking on the risk of the local universities not necessarily giving a scholarship? It is not clear that the scholar should be taking on this risk - even if the scholarship is designed poorly. On the other hand, if some departments do not wish to use the scheme, what are their reasons, and how can their concerns be addressed?Third, can the local universities guarantee the scholars a tenure track position? This is also important because it is not clear that there is leeway built to account for the possibility that the scholars wish to pursue an area that none of the universities are interested in hiring, or perhaps more likely, too many of them wish to pursue the same area. If a tenure track position is not available, will the scholars be pushed into lecturer positions instead, which pay even less, with a larger teaching load and less time for research - basically with little way back to tenure track? Again, this is a case of the scholar taking on a risk that he / she should not have to subject themselves to. I am not sure that the fine print states this clearly upfront either.Fourth - if there are PhD scholarships readily available from the universities that have PhD programs, should MOE not also include this piece of information to the potential scholars, instead of giving potential scholars the impression that the PhD has to be self-funded? I am not sure caveat emptor is the approach we want to take when offering scholarships, especially if one of the scholarships is targeted at 19 year olds.Finally - MOE sells the scholarship by stating that a unique benefit of the scholarship is the linking of scholars to local faculty mentors. I would argue that this is NOT a unique benefit, since any aspiring PhD student should connect to faculty, so as to get research experience as well as recommendation letters for PhD programs. All they do is to codify it - and look, any serious pursuer of a PhD should already be pursuing this line of action! Additionally, if the scholar is doing their undergraduate studies overseas, a recommendation letter from a local university faculty member may not be persuasive since it is less credible that the student will have worked with the faculty member directly.That said, I do think there is a place for the scholarship for people who have completed their undergraduate degrees and are already in a PhD program, especially for fields where hiring might be more difficult, or the research more niche / specific. Further, this route seems to be more sensible for expanding the local faculty than (what seems to me) a heavy handed approach with the MOE-AU undergraduate scholarship.THOUGHTS ON SINGAPOREANS, PHDS, AND HOW THAT AFFECTS THE MOE-AU SCHOLARSHIPAnother cultural / societal point to keep in mind: I feel that many pre-university students view government scholarships as a fail-safe option - which many scholarships might very well be - but I believe this scholarship is an exception. Remember, the outcome of this scholarship is a job with one of the universities, not the government - and therefore the risks are very different!Personally, the intricacies of the scholarship and the specific aims of the scholarship are also not presented clearly to the applicants. Further, applicants are, in a way, being misinformed or uninformed about the difference between the desired outcome and the various possible outcomes for the scholarship. While this “misinformation” may not be on purpose, I think there is a duty on MOE to provide that information, which I think it has not fulfilled. As such, I find the information asymmetry between the scholarship and the potential scholar to be excessively large, and would not recommend any pre-university student to take on the scholarship without first turning over all the stones, becoming aware of all the issues, and re-evaluating it based on the fullest set of information possible. There are just too many moving parts that have to move just so for the scholarship to work out as designed.Additionally, given my past experience as a graduate student in Singapore, I find it hard to not conclude that MOE treats the PhD as a degree rather than as an accreditation of research. I base this conclusion on several changes in policy that I have witnessed and heard about since I left for my PhD in the United States. For example: strict no funding and restriction on outside or additional funding for local PhD students beyond the fourth or fifth year, pressure from MOE to universities and faculty to have their PhD students graduate ASAP (within 4 years if possible). Put simply, MOE seems to want to have more PhDs in Singapore because it would show, as a KPI, that the populace is becoming more educated, and that the education system is succeeding at educating people. What matters to them is the number of graduates - not whether those very same graduates have a job or a position post-PhD, and it is still unclear whether Singapore really needs that many PhDs.So - this focus on graduating is in stark contrast to what PhD programs generally are, which is an accreditation of a research journey / ability to do research, or even as a means of supporting research! In other words, quantity is good enough - quality is secondary. So far, this feels to me to be exactly the same approach they are taking with the MOE-AU scholarship, in that they view it as a simplistic problem of: Singapore universities do not have a lot of Singaporean faculty and most of the Singaporean faculty are close to retirement; faculty need PhDs, preferably from good schools; solution is therefore to send more Singaporeans to PhD programs in good schools with scholarships - without fully considering all of the other complications. This would go a long way in explaining their initial responses, and should also point any potential scholar to seriously reconsider the undergraduate scholarship, if only because this shows that the design, implications, and outcomes of the scholarship are not well thought out. If they do not understand the situation that the scholars are going to be placed in, it is very hard to believe that the scholarship has been designed with care.Given the above, I think the MOE-AU undergraduate scholarship is likely to be a bane, rather than a boon for Singapore academia - at least, as it is currently designed. As is, I have serious doubts on its design to accomplish its stated and advertised aims to bring pre-university students towards becoming academics.SOLUTIONS?So, what can be done? MOE's initial responses (like their response to an earlier Today letter on the MOE-AU scheme - see "MOE-AU scholarship for students with clear passion for academic career") made it hard to conclude that MOE had plans to look at giving current SPhD students direct support. That letter also made it difficult to believe that MOE would be "better supporting young Singaporeans interested in an academic career" - which is the stated aim of the MOE-AU scholarship. It looked like they were not interested in young Singaporeans who are interested in an academic career, but instead more interested in the typical pre-university scholar aspirant and placing them on a pathway to be academics at our local universities.Now, why focus on current SPhD students? First off - these are people who are exactly the people MOE claims that they want to support - "young Singaporeans interested in an academic career"! They have already acted on their interest, so why not focus on them? My view is that more can be done to reach out to this group of existing Singaporean students - people that I think the funds for the MOE-AU undergraduate scheme could have been put to better use to. These people are the easiest target group - they have been vetted by university departments overseas as qualified PhD students, had the interest to apply, and had the appropriate CV to induce the departments to offer them a place in a PhD program. Also, if they have already passed their qualifying exams, then there is another filter for quality in place. Finally, since most PhD programs provide funding, the taxpayer can save on some risky funding if MOE and the local universities target these people who are halfway through their PhD.From what I am told, MOE initially resisted and rejected this change (which was counter proposed by one of the local universities), and they strongly preferred to only have the MOE-AU undergraduate scholarship scheme as is. Their initial stance was perhaps because existing SPhDs are likely to already have funding, and are hence unlikely to take on the scholarship - in my view, this illustrates why the MOE-AU undergraduate scholarship and the university PhD scholarships are flawed (to different degrees, as discussed above).The latest news, however, is that MOE is pushing the universities to explore using the scholarship option on existing SPhD students as well (see how the SMU Overseas PhD Scholarship also now allows mid-term applicants). This may still be sub-optimal in terms of economic efficiency and allocation, but will help the local universities to increase their ranks of local faculty, and is at the very least a more realistic solution and compromise between quality and quantity. If anything, this approach is more likely to help aspiring Singaporean academics and expand the core of local academics than the MOE-AU undergraduate scholarship.This is in tandem with offering post-doc scholarships for SPhDs as announced in their official press release. The post-doc scholarship is a step in the right direction, especially for fields where post-doc positions are scarce and competition for those positions are fierce - free of financial constraints, the SPhDs are more likely to obtain a better post-doc position, which should help their subsequent research career. Remember, research publications are currency for the academic.That said, even if current SPhD students may already have funding and have no interest in committing to a bonded scholarship, MOE can still provide other initiatives to support Singaporeans who are interested in an academic career, such as providing additional research funding to SPhD students (like Taiwan does), and building initiatives to link these SPhD students with local academia, perhaps by encouraging joint research projects and the like, or annual meetings or get-togethers in Singapore. In particular, MOE could perhaps keep track of Singaporeans who are enrolled in good PhD programs abroad and start a dialogue between them and local faculty, as well as encourage them to think about coming back. Increased exposure will limit information asymmetry.Additionally, more can also be done to engage local university students to consider an academic career - since the majority of Singaporeans stay in Singapore for their undergraduate career, under reasonable assumptions it should be that most of the Singaporeans who might be interested in an academic career should be graduates of the local universities. Given that most of the press releases and the like have been focused on sending pre-university graduates overseas or existing PhD graduates moving on to post-docs, there isn't much being done now to sell the PhD scholarships to current Singaporean undergraduates as far as I can tell. If we want to expand the Singaporean core, we cannot just rely on pure self-selection: more should be done to encourage people to consider this route. Regardless, any "selling" has to be transparent and honest - which is, in my opinion, what the MOE-AU undergraduate scholarship has not been.Overall, in my view, there are currently unexplored options that will be cheaper, and potentially more effective than just relying on scholarships, and even better - they can act as complements to those scholarships!Finally, another point is that given the priorities of most Singaporeans, the route towards a PhD is immensely unattractive, especially financially. Part of the issue may very well be the relatively high cost of living in Singapore on a local academic salary. For academia to become a more attractive option, the government and the universities have to show the arguably more realistic Singaporean student that it is an attractive job path for them. I think this is a very difficult task, given the relatively low chances of success and high costs, pecuniary and non-pecuniary, even though the local universities generally already pay rather well on a global level. It may very well be necessary to provide some safety valve for locals who take on academic positions in Singapore, but that is a Pandora's box for another day.OTHER SOLUTIONS AND TO-DOSAnother thought - if we concede that pre-university graduates do not have a good idea of what academia is like, and keeping in mind that PhD programs generally come with funding, why have the MOE-AU undergraduate scholarship? Perhaps a better idea would be to allow all government scholars to have the option to do a PhD and delay their bond after their funded undergraduate studies if they get into a program with funding, and then allow them to transfer their bond to the local universities if the local universities find them suitable for a tenure track position. Given that the number of scholars is relatively numerous, surely it cannot be that the transfer of the bond is an issue of concern. This has happened before - see Prof. Melvyn Teo at SMU for a recent success story that comes to mind - so why not explicitly make this an option for all government scholars, and encourage all government scholars to consider it? Open up the option to more scholars - and make this option explicitly available for them rather than hiding it in plain sight. Also, this solves the problem of having a scholar commit to this scheme and then discovering that they actually have no wish to be an academic.One other possible, very feasible initiative that MOE can look into that will help Singaporeans who are interested in academia is to return and expand MOE funding for research type Masters programs in our local universities. These programs once existed, but were, based on what I understand, cancelled and closed in favour of funding PhD programs instead. Disclaimer: I am actually a beneficiary of one of these Masters programs myself. These programs are very helpful for Singaporeans who are exploring the academic route for the following reasons:First, it is after all a funded option which gives these people a better idea of what they are getting into, since there is a strong research component rather than a focus on coursework. From what I remember, the course fees were covered by a graduate subsidy that MOE offers to all Singaporeans for certain Masters programs, while MOE also provided an additional stipend for those who were enrolled. For fields where a Masters degree is almost a pre-requisite for PhD admissions, this also helps interested Singaporeans save on having to spend a substantial amount of money for a Masters degree, which are generally not funded. As such, the financial barrier on the path towards a PhD and academia is mitigated further!Second, it also provides some training for the fields that they are interested in, since the coursework for these research Masters programs are usually the same as the PhD programs in our local universities. Believe me, I had an easier time with the coursework at my current program thanks to having taken classes at the same level before.Third, following the two previous points, these programs will help strengthen the CV of these potential academics for their applications to PhD programs, both in terms of paper qualifications and research experience. These will turn help them get placed in even better PhD programs - not forgetting that in certain fields having a Masters prior to applying is basically the norm. Of course, applicants might have a strong enough CV to get in without a Masters degrees, but that does not mean that these programs are worthless.Fourth, such programs also make it easier for these students to get working with existing local faculty on research, which gives them a head-start on their academic career, and would also strengthen the Singaporean academic research core!Fifth, this program would also allow MOE to identify people who are interested in an academic career by virtue of their applying for such programs, beyond those that applied after their pre-university education. Remember, one of the key issues is to identify interested persons!Sixth, the local universities will also have the opportunity to basically evaluate possible scholarship applicants and recipients up close, thereby reducing any information asymmetry and reduce scholarship risks.One crazy idea might be to ask the local universities to insert a requirement for their undergraduate students to work as research assistants for faculty like some of the local universities do with social work and volunteerism. This would be rather heavy handed in my opinion, though, and more thought must be put into this. In the USA, faculty regularly get requests from undergraduates to work as research assistants - quite often for no compensation, or to fulfill some work requirement for their scholarship grants. If designed properly, and, more importantly, if the faculty do not abuse this program and provide good research exposure and guidance to the undergraduates, it might encourage undergraduates to pursue an academic career and provide faculty with an opportunity to share what the life of an academic entails.Further, I would like to see MOE build on the survey of Singaporean PhD students overseas by Chia and Kang (2014): "Where Are My Country(wo)men? The Lack of Singaporean Academics in Singapore’s Universities". We need a bigger, more comprehensive survey of this type to figure out exactly why and what can be done. That said, we also need to figure out if there is any bias within the hiring system in the local universities as well - we cannot just look at one side. Furthermore, there should be a study on how plainly increasing the proportion of Singaporean faculty may affect the universities - let's at least explore the benefits and costs rather than just blindly thinking an increase is best!Additionally, Tan and Guo, in their letter to Today (which I referred to earlier) argue that more should be done to attract Singaporeans who hold faculty positions overseas to move back to Singapore. One letter to the Today paper extolling the benefits of the MOE-AU undergraduate scholarship attempted to downplay the Tan and Guo argument by claiming that encouraging the local universities to hire local who hold academic positions abroad is interfering with the hiring decisions of the local universities - if this is a problem, how are the MOE-AU undergraduate scholarships not potentially even worse?Now - why existing Singaporean faculty abroad? Remember - these people have been vetted multiple times on the basis of research ability on an international level. They have finished their PhD, managed to obtain a tenure track job - and some have even managed to be obtain tenure at very reputable academic institutions! If we want a Singaporean core, why should we be ignoring these people? Unfortunately, I think hiring back established Singapore faculty is even more difficult than reaching out to current SPhDs, but I certainly would like to see people like Tracey Ho and Wang Changhuei (Caltech), Rahul Kapoor (Penn - Wharton) and Wong Chee-Wei (Columbia), among other very well-qualified Singaporean faculty overseas, in Singaporean universities. The question is - why are they not? The simple answer is of course that they think their current positions are better. If so, what could the local education system do to attract them back? The solution there, truth be told, is to ask them directly, and then work from there. What is there to fear from asking?That said - apparently there is a "Returning Singaporean Scientists Scheme" which was started in 2013 by the National Research Foundation, explicitly for the purpose of attracting local academics home with sizable research grants. Ho Teck Hua is returning to Singapore to join NUS with the help of this scheme - for those who do not know, Ho Teck Hua is an extremely well known marketing and decision science professor who was previously a Full Professor at the Haas School of Business at UC-Berkeley, where he was drawing a salary of about 550K USD (in 2013). So there is hope!FACULTY QUOTAS?Now - what about a Singaporean faculty quota? Maintaining a Singaporean quota does not make total sense in terms of the wider mission of the local universities. If what I have experienced and observed thus far in Singapore is any indication, a Singaporean quota is more likely to drive away qualified research faculty, both Singaporean and non-Singaporean, thus again compromising the mission of our local universities.On a related note (and an explanation), I am not sure that limiting the recruiting committees makes sense - most of the local research active faculty members I know are strict believers in hiring the best available talent, if only because they know talent and research ability is currency in academia. I suppose if you wanted more Singaporeans at the expense of everything else, this could work, but at what cost? Of course, the foreign faculty members might very well also be discriminatory in their hiring preferences - but as always, we need more exact data to show this, and at least let's be honest and accept that locals may very well do the same! The solution for this problem is unclear, unfortunately, but I think it is foolish to think that a one size fits all solution exists - refer to the first line of Anna Karenina, if you know what I mean.While it may be argued that other sectors already have nationality based hiring, the thing to keep in mind is that that is true for government agencies, where this could be acceptable. I am not willing to accept that the universities should be the same - if only because universities should be able to be a place of discussion and presentation of differing views, and differing nationalities is an excellent way of preserving that. Additionally, economically, why should we implement quotas, when it is not clear that the quota actually improves the status quo? In general, in economics, quotas are welfare-reducing. If we should have a quota, it should be a quota implemented because it increases our welfare. However, this again depends on what we define welfare to be. If we just want Singaporean faculty regardless of their ability and take that as our preferred measure of welfare - then yes, I suppose this quota could work, but I think softer approaches are more appropriate given that the supply of SPhDs is low to begin with, and an artificial inflation of SPhDs and faculty brings along serious shortcomings. If the supply does not change we could be basically hiring faculty of lower quality just because they are Singaporean. Hence, I think it is clear that just simply enforcing a simple quota is not optimal for the universities, as well as higher education and research in Singapore.Academia is not an isolated field. If we want to have more local academics in our universities, these academics had better be able to compete on an international level, or at least close to it. That means top tier journal publications, conference presentations at esteemed conferences, and the like. We should not simply offer an academic a job because of his or her passport, but because the academic brings something to the university. If there is a balance that needs to be struck, we must first solve the problem of figuring out what we want the universities to be!On the other hand, one thing that can be more easily done is to ensure that the local teaching faculty (the lecturers and the like) are largely local in composition, to offset the likely larger number of foreigners in the research ranks. Keep in mind, however, that these positions do not pay as well, and for some SPhDs, they might very well be able to get a tenure track position elsewhere and prefer to take that, try their luck for a while, then come back to Singapore if necessary than to return to Singapore to be a teaching track faculty member immediately. Keeping options open, as always.All in all - if the emphasis / aim is to increase the proportion of local faculty, aiming for a Singaporean teaching faculty would be a more realistic route to take, at least in the beginning where the supply of research-active Singaporean faculty is limited - probably in tandem with focusing any scholarship programs on existing SPhD students. However, the financials and other considerations must be taken into account, and care must be taken to ensure that the universities are protected. For example, can the local universities still replace or fire under-performing faculty even if they are Singaporean? What I am thinking of is that if a hard floor for the proportion of Singaporean faculty is implemented, the local universities may end up being unable to fire someone who should be fired. On the other hand, having such a floor would still make it harder to fire a Singaporean, which may not be ideal or efficient, allocation wise. If a faculty member is bad, the university should have the freedom to replace him or her as long as they have the grounds to do so - without fear of being reported to MOE for discrimination or the like and then being subject to investigations. Alternatively, universities must also be able to resist having to hire unqualified Singaporeans for faculty positions just to have a Singaporean presence on the faculty - for example, should our local universities be put in the position that they feel that they have to hire a person with no PhD and outdated relevant industry experience for a senior faculty position just because they do not have a sizable Singapore faculty contingent? I think the answer is clearly no - protectionism of this level is counter-productive.ARE THE LOCAL UNIVERSITIES DISCRIMINATING AGAINST SINGAPOREAN PHDS?As for the falling number of Singaporean faculty over the years... I think that concluding from those numbers that the local universities aren't keen to encourage Singaporeans to take up positions is very one sided. If that is what you conclude from that piece of data, I think you haven't thought about it deeply, if at all, or have read the data very selectively. That conclusion might make sense if we are looking at a world where all SPhDs seek to return to Singapore, but look - this is obviously not necessarily true! Again, this point was also brought up in the Wanted: Local talent in varsities article by a local faculty member, but I note that the point made about foreign faculty members not sinking roots in Singapore was not accompanied by any data - it was an unchallenged assertion. Let's have some numbers to back up these assertions, please.So - back to the point. Let's think simply: for example, if the supply of qualified SPhDs is lower than before, or if the quality of SPhDs has shifted higher such that the demand for them from other more esteemed institutions is correspondingly higher - these could very well explain why we have less Singaporean faculty in the local universities now, no? I have already discussed the low number of existing SPhDs, and all in all, hiring faculty is a matching problem - it is not clear that such a sinister agenda is in place. As one of my faculty likes to say when a student makes a huge logical leap on an homework / exam question and pass it off as obvious: "It may be clear to you but it is not clear to me!"Another potential explanation for the decrease is that there are many older Singaporean faculty retiring. This makes sense considering how many of the old guard faculty are Singaporean. Of course, then the counter question is why did we have so many back then and so little now? I could think of several reasons.Firstly, in that time period when these soon-to-retire faculty were hired, faculty were mainly hired to teach, rather than do research. Take a look at the CVs of the older generations of SPhDs and count the number of top-tier journal article publications (NOT just any publications). Compare that with the more recent hires and make your own conclusions…As an example, let's take a look at the Arizona State University Ranking of Finance departments, which is based on publications in the top 4 finance journals from 1990 to 2014 (select view all schools at ASU Finance Rankings). Let's look at the three major local universities. SMU is 76th, even though it was only established in 2000 - but it was established with research as a main aim from the get go. NUS should be ranked 89th, since the ranking has two NUS entries - but notice how many more papers were published after 2000, after SMU came on the scene. NTU is 97th (but should be 98th with the NUS modification), and also notice that it had basically no top tier publications before 2000. That's 10 years of no "A" tier research output, and in relatively recent times! So local academia as a whole HAS changed. Correspondingly, the local academic is no longer what it used to be, so we must at least recognise that - the required skill set is different, and the available supply of faculty and the Singapore subset of that is therefore very different as well!It is far easier to hire teaching faculty than research - the acceptable pool is much larger, given that people with vast prior experience in the area and no PhD could also be excellent in the classroom at imparting course-specific skills. So if teaching faculty are the people leaving, and the universities now want to hire research active faculty (as explained previously), then surely these are two different faculty types, and it would be unreasonable to assume that the supply of these two types are the same! Asserting that the local universities actively do not hire locals based on the downward trend is intellectually dishonest in my view, if you do not consider the less scandalous possible explanations seriously.Secondly, I suspect that in those days faculty members did not see much benefit in staying abroad, and had a stronger preference to return home. Academia now is much, much more competitive than it was then, and based on anecdotal evidence from conversations with faculty, salaries were more similar across countries in the past, so there was at least one less compelling reason to not return back to Singapore.Third, it is possible that the existence of scholarship programs like the Colombo Scholar program, or the Senior Tutor programs, in tandem with the teaching faculty issue, caused an artificially large presence in local faculty then. If the supply was artificially increased and there were less reasons to stay overseas, the smaller number of local faculty now compared to the past may not be a reduction done on purpose by the local universities, but an actual correction of the actual market for local academics to the true level, free of these market distortions. There might still be a place for such scholarships to increase the supply of SPhDs, but matching that with demand is complicated, as discussed previously.TO CONCLUDE...In sum - difficult question. More can be done. I do not believe that the local universities are faultless, but I certainly do not believe that they are primarily at fault like some of the other answers claim. The problem / question is a multi-facted one. There are policies that can be implemented, but care must be taken. The MOE must in particular seek more varied views - not just at the top with the university administrators, but the faculty chairs, existing SPhDs, and undergraduates to figure out a total package, and be willing to modify their initiatives. In the short run, focusing efforts on supporting existing SPhD students is likely to be more effective, but in the long run, Singapore needs to encourage more people towards academia, especially if research academia is the aim rather than teaching.REFERENCESBelow, I include some links to items I referenced, explanations to some references I made, and some newspaper forum letters about the MOE-AU scholarship over the past couple of months.References:Wanted: Local Talent in Varsities (ST): Wanted: Local talent in varsitiesMOE press release for the MOE-AU scholarship: Helping Young Singaporeans Jumpstart into a Career in AcademiaMOE FAQ for the MOE-AU scholarship: MOE-AU Scholarship: Frequently Asked QuestionsChia and Kang (2014) survey of SPhDs: Where Are My Country(wo)men? The Lack of Singaporean Academics in Singapore’s UniversitiesCouncil of Graduate Schools Ph.D. Completion Project: CGS Ph.D. Completion Project Quantitative DataThe first line in Anna Karenina: 'All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.'Wikipedia article for Akerlof's 1970 paper, "The Market for Lemons": The Market for LemonsNo Star Arts Grant, Eng Kai Er: No Star Arts Grant: WhyHo Teck Hua returning to Singapore: S'pore scientist Ho Teck Hua leaves Berkeley to head research at NUSArizona State University Finance department Rankings: ASU Finance RankingsThe answer to life, the universe, and everything: 42The air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow: What do you mean? An African or European swallow?MOE press release for first batch of MOE-AU Scholars: http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2015/08/first-scholarships-awarded-under-new-singapore-teaching-and-academic-research-talent-scheme.phpLetters:February 18 2015, Today Online, Sum Siew Kee: Research and academic careers being fixed too earlyMarch 6 2015, Today Online, John Lim from MOE, reply to the Sum Siew Kee letter: MOE-AU scholarship for students with clear passion for academic careerMarch 13 2015, Today Online, Vincent Tan and Guo Huili, disputing the John Lim letter: Five reasons to rethink MOE-AU scholarshipMarch 17 2015, Today Online, Sanjay Perera, disputing the Vincent Tan and Guo Huili letter: Why MOE-AU scholarship is a good idea - this letter, to be honest, is written by a person who has no clue about this issue or, at the very most, has a very biased and selective reading of it. He basically advocates the scholarship to support all aspiring academics cost / suitability be damned, and claims that arguments to push our local universities to try to attract Singaporean faculty back is tantamount to forcing universities to hire one type of faculty - not realizing that the same MOE-AU scholarship he supports does the same exact thing if it works as designed.March 21 2015, Today Online, Han Ming Guang, disputing the Sanjay Perera letter, and supporting the Tan and Guo letter: MOE-AU scholarship: Not wise to target pre-university studentsMarch 21 2015, ST Forum, Elvin Ong - disclaimer here - I was part of the private discussion that led to the writing and submission of this letter: Invest in current PhD students