Of safety nets, degrees and self-fulfilling prophesies

Hi there, I recently had a long exchange with one of my readers about some really bad advice he was given by his family. This guy didn't have good A level results, nonetheless he has an offer from NUS to do a course (applied physics) he has virtually no interest in - but it was the only offer since he didn't have the grades to get into any of the other courses that he applied in. This guy currently has completed his NS earlier this year and has been working in a restaurant where he is really enjoying the experience - he wants to pursue a career in the restaurant trade but is under pressure from his friends and family to get that NUS degree as a 'safety net' which I find utterly ludicrous. Look, I know his friends and family care about him, but it doesn't mean that they are giving him good advice. What frustrates me is that they are imposing their will on him because they mean well, they are not doing intentionally to fuck up his life, but well, that's exactly what they are doing when they are trying to give advice on issues they really don't know anything about. Say your cousin gets diagnosed with leukemia - would you start prescribing medicines and treatments even though you're not a doctor at all, or would you refer your cousin to the best cancer specialist in available? This was already a topic of contention with DPM Tharman a while ago. No sir, the Singaporean government doesn't have a welfare state to cushion your fall from grace.

I have already done many rants about family members, especially uneducated parents giving bad advice and I'm not going to turn this into one of them - but for crying out aloud, what the hell are these parents thinking, trying to impose their will on their children when they are in no position to help and are only giving them bad advice? Why can't they just help their children try to seek the right resources for information and speak to the right individuals for good advice? Why do they think they know so much when they are totally ignorant?  Is this just a case of the Dunning-Kruger effect or is there a problem that goes a lot deeper than that? Why is a degree not a safety net then? Why do I take such issue in this case, despite the fact that the degree is going to be from a very well respected university rather than some private university issuing degrees not worth the paper it is printed on? Well in today's post, I am going to explore the concept of having a safety net in life when it comes to one's career and well, the bottom line is: there is no safety net in life. The reality is that we're having to do the flying trapeze without a safety net most of the time, but there are some very practical choices that we can indeed make to mitigate the risks we take, if you are not a risk taker and want to opt for certainty.

Now if you want to have a job where you will never ever be unemployed, then you need to imagine the kind of situation a society faces when a war breaks out. It is not such a bizarre scenario as you think, both my parents lived through the Japanese occupation of WW2 and the fact is, even though it was a time of immense suffering, people didn't just sit at home and wait for death to come - hell no, life went on, my grandparents still had to go to work to earn enough money, so that their families didn't starve. The reason why I am using this as an example is that during a war, people became focused on their most basic needs for survival whilst forgoing a lot of the things that just weren't considered essential enough. So if you had a small amount of money to spend on your children, you'll make sure that they had enough to eat and drink, that you had money for medicines should they fall ill - you wouldn't waste that money on something like fancy toys for your kids. So if you are the man running a toy shop during a war, then you'll probably lose your business as no one will be interested in buying toys during a war - but if you own a dairy farm and you're supplying the local town with milk, then there will still be a demand for your milk even when there is a war raging on. People may spend a bit less on milk and consume less milk than in peace time, but it is such a basic food item that people are still going to want milk regardless. And if you are a doctor, then probably, the demand for your services would go up many fold during a war.

So in that context, a "safety net" would make sure that you will always have a job, that there will always be a demand for your skills and services. Thus anything addressing the most basic needs of people would raise the probability of you always being employed. Let me give you an example of a job that's quite the opposite: back in the late 1990s, there was a toy that was very popular amongst children called the Tamagotchi. If you gave one to a child today, they'll probably roll their eyes in disbelief that people could actually find something so basic and simple fun, but there you go - the technology has moved on and young people seek far more complex forms of interactive entertainment these days. It was a fad that lasted a few years but during those few years, millions of Tamagotchis were sold and a lot of people made a lot of money working within the niche Tamagotchi industry. But it's not like those who worked with Tamagotchis in that period are now unemployed and slowly starving to death - hell no, they've merely moved on to other things to make money. Such is the nature of the business world: a trend may emerge, there may be a short opportunity to cash in it and make a lot of money but once that window of opportunity closes, you have to move on to something else. That's quite the opposite of your dairy farmer: people were drinking milk 200 years ago and they will still be drinking milk in 200 years.

So if you were selling Tamagotchis in 1998, then yeah you definitely would be doing something else to make a living today. But if you were selling milk in 1998, guess what? People are still drinking milk today and you may have had to adapt to changing market conditions, but there's still plenty of demand for your product. So the question for you is whether or not you're the wheeler-dealer hustler who's willing to take a chance on new opportunities, new gadgets, new products, venture into new markets and make a killing by investing in the next new trend that is going to take the market by storm or if you just want to do as little as possible to earn enough money, without having to learn new things all the time. I suppose there's no right or wrong answer - you pick the path that best suits your personality, that will make you more happy. So in a recent post, I interviewed some teachers who felt desperate to leave the profession because they felt there was little career progression for them in teaching - but that could be the very same feature of the job that may attract someone else who just wants something stable and constant to do everyday, without having to climb a steep learning curve every few weeks. Some people crave kind of challenge, others fear it - different strokes for different folks.

If you want to talk about a job that is so essential to our basic needs, you need to look no further than your toilet. Imagine if the only toilet in your flat broke down - say the flush was broken and needed replacing, oh dear. That could create quite an unsanitary, smelly situation very quickly and you would be desperately calling the plumber to come and fix your toilet, so you could once again have a working toilet in your house. That's why having a plumbing qualification is as close to a safety net as you can get because people will always need plumbers and you'll always be able to get well paid work as a plumber. So for example, if you wanted to do something like become an actor, write a book or start your own business, you're putting yourself in a position where you have no guaranteed income for a while. If you do have something like a plumbing qualification, you do have that safety net as you can always fall back on becoming a plumber again to make a living if your new venture doesn't work out. But if a degree from NUS in applied physics the same kind of 'safety net' as say a plumbing qualification? Hell no. There is a huge difference - a degree is just an academic qualification, not a skill.

However, many Singaporeans are unfortunately both stupid and snobbish - a terrible combination indeed. They would look down on plumbers because it is considered to be a blue collared job, whilst NUS degree holders tend to end up in white collared jobs. They conveniently ignore the fact that plumbers can make a very good living whilst many graduates are struggling to find any kind of meaningful paid employment that is relevant to their degrees. There is this ridiculous assumption that as long as you get a degree from NUS, employers will be lining up to offer you well-paid jobs - that couldn't be further from the truth. I don't mean to be disparaging, but applied physics is the kind of course you would study if and only if you wish to pursue a career in engineering and whilst it will undoubtedly help you pursue an engineering career, it is far more of a stepping stone rather than a safety net. That's why I get so pissed off with the word 'safety net' used in the wrong context as it is the completely wrong analogy here - which is why I keep saying, beware of family members giving you bad advice. A degree is most certainly not a safety net - you want a safety net, go train as a plumber, but you Singaporeans look down on plumbers even though they probably earn a lot more than a lot of NUS graduates out there. And are these young people even aware of when they are given good advice as opposed to really bad advice from their parents? Can they tell the difference or are they culturally conditioned to obey their parents even when their gut instincts says, "my parents are clearly wrong and they don't know what the heck they're talking about"?

There are things in life that we like but they are not essential, but somehow we convince ourselves that we need it. Let me tell you a story: my friend Liza wanted to get a new dress from her favourite designer but it was going to cost her over £2000. It was a lot of money just for a dress and it wasn't like she couldn't afford it, she could be there was a part of her that thought that spending that much on a dress was just wrong as she could get far more affordable clothing elsewhere and that money could be spent on more sensible things. But somehow, that desire to get that dress was just too great and so Eliza went and bought that dress - then she started trying to justify it. "You have to understand why this dress is so special. This is a limited edition dress, it is a very good investment. If I wanted to sell it, there will be people who will pay a lot for it as long as I keep it in pristine condition. I have this important event coming up at the end of the month, I really don't have anything suitable for that occasion so I had to buy something to go to that event anyway. Honestly, I don't buy new clothes all the time, so when I do actually buy new clothes, I go for quality rather than quantity - like when was the last time I bought something like a pair of jeans? I can't even remember, I'm not like one of those people who buys clothes, only to wear them a few times and then throw them away. I cherish everything I buy and wear." She came up with the most convincing arguments to explain why her spending over £2000 on a dress was completely justified.

Personally, my reaction was just, well it's your money, you've earned it and if you wanna buy that expensive dress then that's your choice. I wouldn't spend that much say on a suit, but if it makes you happy then just do what you want, you don't need to justify anything to me or anyone. But somewhere at the back of her head, she probably regrets spending that much money on just one dress so there's a constant battle going on in her head, trying to convince herself that spending that kind of money on one dress wasn't such a bad idea after all. To put things in perspective, she spent £2000 on a luxury item that she didn't really need, but she derived a lot of pleasure from nonetheless. Was it essential for her to buy the dress? No. Did she need the dress? No. But did she want it and was she willing to pay the price for it? Yes. Likewise for the degree, it is essential for all young people to get a degree and are they completely unable to get work without a degree? The answer is no, of course - loads of people like plumbers, electricians, welders and builders do not have a degree but are highly skilled at what they do and earn more than some white collar workers with degrees. But like that expensive designer dress, just because a degree is seen as highly desirable doesn't mean that it is essential. So what is going on here? Well let me ask you this: how many Singaporeans inherently look down on plumbers and would turn their noses up at plumbing as a career? "Hi Auntie, I'm here to fix your toilet, can you show me where it is please?"

Many of my peers are graduates - compared to my parents' generation, the percentage of graduates is a lot higher. Back in my parents' days, people just didn't go to university, they left full time education as teenagers and found a job to support their families. Back then, degrees were seen as highly desirable of course but simply not essential. Nonetheless, a common sentiment amongst my parents' generation is that they want their children to have the opportunity to pursue the things they never did - such as learning a musical instrument or going to university, especially since they could now afford to give their children these opportunities. It wasn't uncommon to hear elderly folks express a wish for their children to go to university, to become graduates because it would in some way fulfill a dream that they couldn't personally accomplish, but hey at least they are living those dreams through their children and grandchildren. Sometimes, they desire something so much they turn into Eliza with that £2000 designer dress: their rampant, unbridled desire for their children to become graduates has turned something that is at best highly desirable into something essential. "You must become a graduate or less you'll be letting your parents down! We worked so hard to pay for your education, the least you can do is complete that degree you ungrateful wretch! Is this how you repay your parents? By dropping out of school before graduating? Are you trying to drive me to an early grave?" And with that attitude, suddenly, the child has little choice but to get a degree only out of fear of upsetting his parents - oh this process then becomes completely emotional.

My regular readers will know that I'm bald, I started losing my hair in my 30s and about three years ago, I finally gave in and shaved my head all the way. There was a time in my 30s when I battled with hair loss, trying all kinds of medicines and formulas - I have a friend Mitch who was slightly older than me and pretty much in the same boat; Mitch was so desperate to keep his hair that he tried a really expensive treatment that came highly recommended - I balked at the cost and said no, let's see if it works on you, if you have a head full of hair a year from now, I'll do it. Guess what? Mitch is even more bald than me today in spite of his very expensive treatment and when he confronted the hair specialists, they claimed, "the treatment actually worked - we have slowed down your very aggressive hair loss, if you haven't used our treatment, then you would have completely lost all your hair by now. We have managed to preserve some of your hair and it is a good sign." They then went on to prescribe more expensive treatments for his hair loss and he spent a lot more money with them, why? Because he wants to believe that his decision to go for the expensive treatment in the first place was the right one but I just shake my head in disbelief - short of getting a hair transplant like Elton John, his baldness is irreversible. Mitch is balder than me today, I haven't tried anything to stimulate my scalp in three years! Oh you will be amazed the lengths people will go to just to convince themselves that they haven't made the wrong decision.

So in order to justify why they are pressuring their children to get a degree, they then attach all kinds of arguments in favour of going to university - the 'safety net' is but one of those arguments. Just because it is one of the more common arguments doesn't make it any more valid - people attach a lot of emotions into something that means a lot to them. So imagine if Eliza said something like, "I need that £2000 designer dress as it would make me feel beautiful, if I don't have dresses like that I would feel very ugly and so I need it for my self-esteem. It's a small price to pay for my self-esteem, as my self-esteem is so important." Can you see how one can simply create a self-fulfilling prophesy in order to justify their decision to get something they really want? Likewise, if people start convincing themselves that young people must have a degree and if you genuinely believe that your future will be thoroughly bleak without a degree, then everyone would be compelled to get a degree - but what happens if they still suck at life as graduates? Remember my bald friend Mitch: they would then tell themselves, "life is already so hard for me even though I have a decent degree, can you imagine if I didn't go to university? I'd probably be a drug addict, prostitute, homeless or even dead by now." Oh yeah, it's so easy to justify a decision you have made - many Singaporeans are getting that degree simply because it is what is expected of them from their parents, it is only after they graduate that they start justifying why that degree was the right choice for them.

I would like to conclude by asking the question do you really need a safety net in the first place? The analogy I would use is from gymnastics: when we first start learning a skill, yeah we have all kinds of safety mats and training devices to ensure that the gymnasts would never get hurt if they fall because at that stage, we expect them to fail. You can't expect to master a complex skill within the first few attempts and you'll probably wipe out a number of times. That's why we have invented the foam pit: it is a swimming pool filled with pieces of very soft sponge so that even if you crash on your head, you're very unlikely to get hurt. But eventually we do take away the safety mats one by one as the gymnasts gain confidence until the gymnast is able to perform the skill with only the most basic mats, that's when they are ready for competition. In short you need help in the early stages of your career, when you are getting the right kind of training to be able to do your job well - that's when you don't need so much of a safety net per se, but rather a good mentor who will guide you through this very complicated process the same way a gymnast relies on an experienced coach to get them ready for competition. This is the worst part of the process for many Singaporeans: these young people just don't have a mentor, so they turn to their parents who will try to help but really don't know shit and end up giving really bad advice.

So what is more important to the gymnast: the safety mats or the good coach? They serve completely different purposes: the mats break your fall when you fail, the coach nurtures you from a nobody to a gold medalist. Without a good coach, no amount of safety mats, safety nets or safety equipment can teach a gymnast these difficult skills! So here's the punchline: it scares me that so many people are focused on the wrong end of the process, failing. What they really ought to be focusing on is succeeding, or rather the process of succeeding and how you are going to get there. The problem is that many Singaporeans have made a hideous mistake: they think that the university lecturers are going to effectively function as mentors for their students when really, not only are they ill-equipped to do that job after having spent some many years in academic. Furthermore, once you've graduated and try to find a job, it is "goodbye and good luck" - they're not paid to give a shit what happens to you after you graduate! After a few months, they wouldn't even remember your name since they have so many other new students to deal with.  Why would you put so much faith in someone like that to be your mentor? And why focus on having a safety net rather than worrying about finding the right mentor? This obsession with being able to say, "my child is a graduate" or "I am a graduate" has clouded the judgment of so many Singaporeans to the point where they are making terrible decisions. And the irony! I thought going to university was meant to educate you and make you wiser, not leave you more confused, making one terrible decision after another. 

So that's it from me on this topic. I will stop here as I can go on and on, but the common theme is that I see so many misconceptions and illogical arguments offered by ill-informed parents to try to justify their bad decisions based on little more than self-fulling prophesies. What does having a safety net mean to you? Do you think that we all should have some kind of safety net? Do you look upon your degree as a safety net or a stepping stone? And why do you think Asian parents put so much emphasis on their children getting degrees? Leave a comment below and many thanks for reading!