Well, to sum up, it was a disaster.
Lets do it one thing at a time, the college interview.
General questions were asked, some of which I have expected. One of the questions was asked twice, once in each interview, but by different person. The first question asked was "what was the motivation for you to study Economics".I didn't take that question well, and did not answer along that line. It was such a straight forward and simple question, yet I did not express myself in a way I wish I have. I blurted out how I did not intend to study economics and took up Business in NUS for three months and withdrew from the school after realizing it was a massive mistake. My psycho state was like a child confessing to the parent, I guess the admission tutor must have felt that as well. Come on, it was a top school and you are telling me you'e coming here just because you don't like your old school? well, maybe I think about things too much in general. But I was so guilty about holding this truth that I felt I must tell her immediately at the start of the interview.
We proceeded to discuss about my experience in general. How I have moved to China, then to Singapore. How difficult it was for me to adapt to Singapore. I said that besides the language barrier, people in general think differently. I talked about the rule of law and nepotism. compare their governments a bit, and concluded that corruption and nepotism could be traced back to ancient days. It may sound impressive here, but hey, all the while I was stuttering and at some moments, gave long pauses and could not find the right word to express myself. The admission tutors were really nice, they got my point and rephrased it in a coherent sentences with the correct adjectives and words.Twice. but the more they did that, the more I came to realize my linguistic incapability. so I ended up agreeing to my own point rephrased by them. that was demoralizing.
Another question to note was "describe a time in your life, in which you were faced with obstacles and persevere for your cause". I didnt expect this one coming. But I did discussed it with Zijing before, and thought through it a little bit. It was a psychometric interview question that he had with a psychologist from DDI. So I answered that, no problem. The only problem was the stuttering and incoherent speaking.
I didn't know whether my sentences make sense.I felt like a retard rambling incoherent stuff. The whole ordeal lasted for 20 mins. And I ended up asking a stupid question. (wanted to knock myself over, really. It could never be worse than this)
Now the college interview. Now that I realize, the questions were asked to test, not test one's knowledge of economics, but whether one possesses the naturalist mind, whether one can THINK in terms of economics, and apply economic analysis to questions.
The theories tested were cost and benefit analysis, demand and supply analysis, market structure and rationality.
It started off with a question on the oil prices. Oil prices have risen 25% over the past 12 months, and I had to account for the rise. I talked about supply and demand. Dr Allington was kind enough to direct me to the demand of oil by developing economies such as India and China.
Then we moved to Cartel and their sustainability, based on OPEC. It was simple questions, and my thinking was too complex to see the question as it is. What he really wanted to hear was anti trust laws on national level that outlaw such cartels within nation, but international organisation like the OPEC IS sustainable as there's no international law outlawing such a formation. This part was where Dr Allington gave me lots of hints and help. He made the answer really obvious and I would be a total retard if I failed to realize the hint.
Well, I nearly was.
The next question was very interesting, though intimidating and really caught me off guard.
It went something like this: if the life of a person is given a statistical value, at what point of time would that information comes useful. the keyword? HEALTHCARE. I didn't get that and helped me by literally giving me the answer, it was staring at my face.
Then we had another scenario, this time a sailor drown in the sea, it would cost 2 million to save him and his life is worth 1 million, would you save him. I talk about morality. but was lost for words when he asked me to compare the sailor scenario and the healthcare case, with much help again, I nailed it and said the sailor's life value is not statistical. Dr Allington was cheerful and humorous, and I think he was desperate for me to get the gist, and when I did, he couldn't help but exclaimed "exactly, the sailor is a known person! it could be someone we know like San Win" Arghhh.
After all these questions, I was dying within. Hands sweating and morals completely down to the lowest. The interviewers were lovely though, Dr Church and Dr Allington, they took turns to say good bye and wished me Merry Christmas. How sweet, I just wish I have performed better, instead of wasting their time on a busy day like this.
Afterwards, the adrenaline rushed off and I fell into a daze.
Well, it might be more appropriate the change to title of this entry to "my first and last encounter".
Good bye Cambridge. I'm sorry I didn't do better.
No comments:
Post a Comment