PSLE Overhaul: Why Hiring Practices are the Real "Sacred Cow"

Between my National Service and university, I taught at a tuition centre catering to international school students. It was my first exposure to the IGCSE and IB curricula, and I was floored. Compared to the high-pressure cooker of the Singaporean O- and A-Levels, the exams seemed manageable—even "easier."

At first, I was enamored. I saw students who didn't seem to suffer the same soul-crushing stress as their local peers. IGCSE did not affect what school you went, and there were no exams before that. International schools, as with many Western school systems had a K-12 approach: you attended one school from Kindergarten to graduation. But as the years passed, the cracks in that "ideal" system became clear. As the government’s 2026 review of the PSLE system captures the nation’s attention, we need to be careful what we wish for. Reducing the importance of national exams sounds great in a headline, but without changing how we hire, we might just be trading one form of stress for another.

1. Education is Only as Important as the Jobs it Lands Us

Let’s be realistic: Singapore’s obsession with exams isn't just "Asian culture"—it’s a rational response to an economy that uses grades as its primary sorting tool. From the imperial examinations of ancient China to the civil service of today, exams have been the pillar for identifying the "best and brightest."

To paraphrase Churchill: Examinations are the worst system, except for all those other alternatives.

If we remove the PSLE, O-Levels, or A-Levels, how do we decide who gets into Medicine, Law, or get the most coveted scholarships? The stress doesn't disappear; it just moves. We see this in the "International School" circuit. Despite an "easier" curriculum, parents still spend upwards of $40,000 a year on private tutoring on top of $40,000 in school fees. Why? Because parents recognize that while the exam might be easier, the competition for the elite job at the end of the road remains exactly the same.

2. The Meritocracy of the Pen vs. The Meritocracy of the Violin

There is a dangerous myth that "alternative assessments" are more egalitarian than exams. In reality, the opposite is often true.

Examinations are a great equalizer because a child from a rental flat can, with a pen and a library book, outscore a child from a bungalow. But look at the explosion of Direct School Admission (DSA) coaching. Tuition is expensive, but it is a fraction of the cost of grooming a top-tier violinist, a competitive tennis player, or a world-class coder.

You cannot "DSA" as a violinist without a violin, a decade of one-on-one coaching, and the means to travel for competitions. These "holistic" achievements are almost exclusively the domain of the wealthy. By de-emphasizing exams in favor of "talent," we risk creating a system where the "best" schools are reserved for those who can afford the most expensive hobbies.

3. Keep the Exams, but Look Beneath the Grades

The Ministry of Education has signaled that in 2026, "no sacred cows" will be left standing in their review of the system. My suggestion? Don't kill the exam—contextualize the grade.

We have already recognized that a raw quantitative score is an inadequate measure of a child. But rather than jumping to subjective "leadership" metrics, we should look at context. A child from a single-parent household in a rental flat who scores a 'B' without a single hour of tuition has arguably shown more grit and potential than a child from a privileged background who was coached to an 'A'. This isn't about "punishing success"; it’s about better data.

American Ivy League universities already do this. They look at the academic transcript alongside personal circumstances. You can’t get into Harvard with failing grades, but a "good" grade paired with a "compelling backstory" of overcoming adversity often beats a "perfect" grade from a path of least resistance.

Conclusion: The Hiring Manager’s Role

Ultimately, perhaps as a society we just need better safety nets. Parents pin their hopes on education because they observe the reality of the Singaporean workplace: they see who gets the promotion, who gets the "High Flyer" track, and they work backward to the PSLE and all the exams that go into between starting school and starting work.

If we want to reduce the emphasis on exams, we shouldn't just look at the classroom—we need to look at the Boardroom. Until hiring practices value diverse paths and "grit" as much as they value a clean string of As, parents will continue to "hot-house" their children. We can change the testing, but until we change the hiring, the pressure cooker will stay at a rolling boil.