instead of skillsfuture, why govt don't want to fund large organisations to run apprenticeship programmes?

doppypoppy

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
May 24, 2023
Messages
11,432
Reaction score
8,725
instead of skillsfuture, why govt don't want to fund large organisations to run apprenticeship programmes?

large organisations got many zoh bohs , got time to run silly diversity and inclusion initiatives, why not contribute to practical initiatives for the common good

a cert from the industry is much more valuable and attractive than a cert from FirstCum
 

mryang

Banned
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
156,984
Reaction score
17,580
they do actually, with career conversion programme.
the candidate's salary is funded 90% for a few months.

https://www.wsg.gov.sg/home/individ.../career-conversion-programmes-for-individuals

must go for fully funded courses during off work hours.
Analysis of WSG Career Conversion Programmes (CCP) for Individuals Singapore

This analysis examines the provided article "WSG Career Conversion Programmes (CCP) for Individuals" from the website of the Singapore Workforce Development Agency (WSG) for inconsistencies, contradictions, ambiguities, flaws, weasel words, loaded language, data discrepancies, and types of propaganda and fallacies.

1. Inconsistency and Contradiction:

- Eligibility Criteria: The article states that "individuals who have a continuous employment gap of at least two (2) years prior to the programme's commencement will be allowed to apply for CCP job roles similar to their previous jobs." This contradicts the earlier statement that "Career conversion is required" for CCPs. This inconsistency creates confusion about the actual eligibility criteria for individuals with employment gaps.

2. Ambiguity:

- "Substantially Different" Job Roles: The article mentions that the new job role under the CCP should be "substantially different" from previous job roles for new hires. This lacks a clear definition of "substantially different," leaving room for interpretation and potential disputes.
- "Good Prospects" and "Growth Job Roles": The article frequently uses phrases like "good prospects" and "growth job roles" without providing specific metrics or criteria to define these terms. This ambiguity can lead to subjective interpretations and potentially misleading expectations for jobseekers.

3. Flaw:

- Lack of Transparency on Employer Selection: The article mentions that "employer-specific shortlisting processes may apply for different CCPs." However, it does not provide details about the selection criteria or the process, which could raise concerns about fairness and transparency in the program.

4. Weasel Words:

- "Good Prospects": This phrase is a weasel word as it lacks concrete evidence or guarantees about future job opportunities. It creates a positive impression without providing specific details.
- "Industry-Recognized Training": While this phrase suggests high-quality training, it lacks specific information about the accreditation or recognition bodies involved.

5. Loaded Language:

- "Mid-Career Individuals": This phrase implies that individuals are past their prime and need to "convert" their careers, potentially creating a negative connotation for those seeking career changes.
- "Long-Term Unemployed": This term carries a negative stigma and can be perceived as demeaning to individuals who are actively seeking employment.

6. Data Discrepancy:

- Number of Sectors: The article states that CCPs are offered in "around 30 sectors." This vague statement lacks specific details about the sectors covered, making it difficult to assess the program's scope.

7. Propaganda and Fallacy:

- Bandwagon Effect: The article emphasizes the popularity of CCPs by stating that they are "targeted at mid-career individuals" and "help mid-career jobseekers or existing employees reskill." This appeals to the bandwagon effect, suggesting that everyone is participating in the program.
- Appeal to Authority: The article mentions that CCPs are "aligned to Industry Transformation Maps/Jobs Transformation Maps," implying that the program is endorsed by authoritative bodies. This appeal to authority can create a sense of legitimacy and trust.

Conclusion:

The article "WSG Career Conversion Programmes (CCP) for Individuals" contains inconsistencies, ambiguities, flaws, weasel words, loaded language, and uses propaganda and fallacy techniques. These issues can create confusion, mislead jobseekers, and raise concerns about the program's transparency and effectiveness. It is important for WSG to address these issues and provide clearer, more transparent information about the CCP program.
 

nonameless

Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
6,263
Reaction score
3,876
Y need to go school ? Go skill future course few weeks got cert more recognised ...
 

mryang

Banned
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
156,984
Reaction score
17,580
Here are some potential flaws in the WSG Career Conversion Programmes:

Lack of Clear Eligibility Criteria

1. The article does not provide explicit eligibility criteria for the program.

2. It is unclear what qualifications, experience, or skills are required for participation.

Unclear Program Structure and Duration

1. The article does not provide a clear outline of the program's structure and duration.

2. It is unclear how many hours or days the program will require, or what the schedule will be.

Lack of Information on Training and Mentorship

1. The article mentions "structured training" and "mentorship," but does not provide details on what these components entail.

2. It is unclear what specific skills or knowledge will be taught, or who the mentors will be.

No Data on Program Effectiveness
1. The article does not provide any data or statistics on the program's effectiveness or outcomes.

2. It is unclear what metrics will be used to measure the program's success, or how participants will be supported after completing the program.

Potential for Limited Job Placement
1. The article mentions that participants will be placed in jobs, but does not provide details on the types of jobs or the companies involved.

2. It is unclear what support will be provided to help participants find employment after completing the program.

Lack of Transparency in Funding
1. The article does not provide information on how the program is funded.

2. It is unclear what the costs are for participants, or what financial support is available.

Potential for Bias in Selection Process
1. The article does not provide information on how participants will be selected for the program.

2. It is unclear what criteria will be used to select participants, or how the selection process will be fair and transparent.

Lack of Information on Program Evaluation

1. The article does not provide information on how the program will be evaluated.

2. It is unclear what metrics will be used to measure the program's success, or how the program will be improved based on evaluation results.

Potential for Limited Support for Participants

1. The article mentions that participants will receive "comprehensive support," but does not provide details on what this support entails.

2. It is unclear what resources will be available to help participants succeed in the program, or how participants will be supported after completing the program.

Lack of Information on Program Scalability

1. The article does not provide information on how the program will be scaled up or replicated.

2. It is unclear what plans are in place to expand the program to reach more participants, or how the program will be adapted to meet the needs of different populations.

Potential for Limited Focus on Soft Skills

1. The article mentions that the program will focus on "technical skills," but does not provide details on how soft skills will be addressed.

2. It is unclear what support will be provided to help participants develop essential soft skills, such as communication, teamwork, and problem-solving.

Lack of Information on Program Accessibility

1. The article does not provide information on how the program will be made accessible to participants with disabilities.

2. It is unclear what accommodations will be made to ensure that participants with disabilities can fully participate in the program.

Potential for Limited Focus on Diversity and Inclusion

1. The article does not provide information on how the program will promote diversity and inclusion.

2. It is unclear what strategies will be used to ensure that the program is inclusive and respectful of all participants, regardless of their background, culture, or identity.

Lack of Information on Program Evaluation Metrics

1. The article does not provide information on what metrics will be used to evaluate the program's success.

2. It is unclear what data will be collected, or how the program's effectiveness will be measured.

Potential for Limited Focus on Long-Term Outcomes

1. The article does not provide information on how the program will support participants in achieving long-term outcomes.

2. It is unclear what strategies will be used to ensure that participants can sustain their employment and continue to grow in their careers over time.

Lack of Information on Program Staff and Resources

1. The article does not provide information on the qualifications and experience of the program staff.

2. It is unclear what resources will be available to support participants, or how the program will be delivered.

Potential for Limited Focus on Participant Feedback

1. The article does not provide information on how participant feedback will be collected and used to improve the program.

2. It is unclear what mechanisms will be in place to ensure that participants have a voice in shaping the program and its services.

Lack of Information on Program Partnerships

1. The article does not provide information on what partnerships or collaborations will be established to support the program.

2. It is unclear what role these partnerships will play in delivering the program, or how they will contribute to its success.

Potential for Limited Focus on Sustainability

1. The article does not provide information on how the program will be sustained over time.

2. It is unclear what plans are in

 
Last edited:

born2fly

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2024
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
735
Nobody should work after 65, LIfe is short these days not the oldies where you can expect to live until ripe old age of 85-90!
 

tuxguy

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
15,922
Reaction score
7,313
instead of skillsfuture, why govt don't want to fund large organisations to run apprenticeship programmes?

large organisations got many zoh bohs , got time to run silly diversity and inclusion initiatives, why not contribute to practical initiatives for the common good

a cert from the industry is much more valuable and attractive than a cert from FirstCum

if they do that, will have less foreigners to create jobs for Singaporeans, cannot lah
 

86technie

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
38,910
Reaction score
5,041
I put it simple since I been through such course.
So long if employer don't send you for course it will be deem self improvement.
Most employers expect employee hired can perform without training.
Which is there are a lot of foreign trash.
If you cannot perform or need training means you CMI.
But than foreigner no need to train?
Hardly any employers send employee for courses.
You cannot perform just replaced
 

jacko123

Banned
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Messages
5,412
Reaction score
1,970
Analysis of WSG Career Conversion Programmes (CCP) for Individuals Singapore

This analysis examines the provided article "WSG Career Conversion Programmes (CCP) for Individuals" from the website of the Singapore Workforce Development Agency (WSG) for inconsistencies, contradictions, ambiguities, flaws, weasel words, loaded language, data discrepancies, and types of propaganda and fallacies.

1. Inconsistency and Contradiction:

- Eligibility Criteria: The article states that "individuals who have a continuous employment gap of at least two (2) years prior to the programme's commencement will be allowed to apply for CCP job roles similar to their previous jobs." This contradicts the earlier statement that "Career conversion is required" for CCPs. This inconsistency creates confusion about the actual eligibility criteria for individuals with employment gaps.

2. Ambiguity:

- "Substantially Different" Job Roles: The article mentions that the new job role under the CCP should be "substantially different" from previous job roles for new hires. This lacks a clear definition of "substantially different," leaving room for interpretation and potential disputes.
- "Good Prospects" and "Growth Job Roles": The article frequently uses phrases like "good prospects" and "growth job roles" without providing specific metrics or criteria to define these terms. This ambiguity can lead to subjective interpretations and potentially misleading expectations for jobseekers.

3. Flaw:

- Lack of Transparency on Employer Selection: The article mentions that "employer-specific shortlisting processes may apply for different CCPs." However, it does not provide details about the selection criteria or the process, which could raise concerns about fairness and transparency in the program.

4. Weasel Words:

- "Good Prospects": This phrase is a weasel word as it lacks concrete evidence or guarantees about future job opportunities. It creates a positive impression without providing specific details.
- "Industry-Recognized Training": While this phrase suggests high-quality training, it lacks specific information about the accreditation or recognition bodies involved.

5. Loaded Language:

- "Mid-Career Individuals": This phrase implies that individuals are past their prime and need to "convert" their careers, potentially creating a negative connotation for those seeking career changes.
- "Long-Term Unemployed": This term carries a negative stigma and can be perceived as demeaning to individuals who are actively seeking employment.

6. Data Discrepancy:

- Number of Sectors: The article states that CCPs are offered in "around 30 sectors." This vague statement lacks specific details about the sectors covered, making it difficult to assess the program's scope.

7. Propaganda and Fallacy:

- Bandwagon Effect: The article emphasizes the popularity of CCPs by stating that they are "targeted at mid-career individuals" and "help mid-career jobseekers or existing employees reskill." This appeals to the bandwagon effect, suggesting that everyone is participating in the program.
- Appeal to Authority: The article mentions that CCPs are "aligned to Industry Transformation Maps/Jobs Transformation Maps," implying that the program is endorsed by authoritative bodies. This appeal to authority can create a sense of legitimacy and trust.

Conclusion:

The article "WSG Career Conversion Programmes (CCP) for Individuals" contains inconsistencies, ambiguities, flaws, weasel words, loaded language, and uses propaganda and fallacy techniques. These issues can create confusion, mislead jobseekers, and raise concerns about the program's transparency and effectiveness. It is important for WSG to address these issues and provide clearer, more transparent information about the CCP program.

certain things are best left ambiguous.
when buy a fish, you don't ask the fishmonger how many bones are there inside.

have a few candidates of this program in my company, pretty ok.
no qualms having them around as salary is almost fully funded by gahment.
that's the most important factor in product testing, free trial.
don't like can always fire.
 

mryang

Banned
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
156,984
Reaction score
17,580
certain things are best left ambiguous.
when buy a fish, you don't ask the fishmonger how many bones are there inside.

have a few candidates of this program in my company, pretty ok.
no qualms having them around as salary is almost fully funded by gahment.
that's the most important factor in product testing, free trial.
don't like can always fire.
Very vague......can you give me more details? What sector are you in?
What is their job scope?
Is your company very confident on them doing their job?
 

maikumgong

Supremacy Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2020
Messages
6,380
Reaction score
2,242
instead of skillsfuture, why govt don't want to fund large organisations to run apprenticeship programmes?

large organisations got many zoh bohs , got time to run silly diversity and inclusion initiatives, why not contribute to practical initiatives for the common good

a cert from the industry is much more valuable and attractive than a cert from FirstCum
During army days, this is the so called thinking soldier
 

jq1986

Supremacy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
7,730
Reaction score
664
Nobody should work after 65, LIfe is short these days not the oldies where you can expect to live until ripe old age of 85-90!
I don't know what you are smoking, but life expectancies have increased around the world, not decreased, including in Singapore.
 
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.

Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards, Terms of Service and Member T&Cs for more information.
Top