WHILE I agree with Mr Ling Ming Hui ("No foolproof method to awarding scholarships"; last Thursday), the selection process and subsequent monitoring of scholarship holders' mental health can be made more robust.
Currently, scholarship agencies rely on a multiple-choice screening test to determine personality and mental health status.
Perhaps an interview with a psychologist could also be included, to give a more complete picture of each applicant.
Such screening tests could also be conducted regularly throughout the duration of the scholarship, to detect mental health issues which may arise during the course of study.
Regular contact, either face to face or via Skype, could be instituted to keep track of the students' well-being.
Perhaps peers are in the best position to provide feedback on a scholarship holder's mental health.
A buddy system could provide invaluable support, should students face serious problems, before the situation deteriorates further.
Students should not hesitate to make use of any whistle-blowing policy, should they suspect a fellow student of having serious mental health problems. It is always safer to err on the side of caution, if the students have acted in good faith.
Given the high stakes involved should things go wrong - not least of which are the hefty financial liabilities to be borne by the scholarship recipients and their guarantors - the onus is on scholarship applicants to divulge any mental health issues they may have, rather than face the severe penalties, should these issues come to light later.
Maria Loh Mun Foong (Ms)
Currently, scholarship agencies rely on a multiple-choice screening test to determine personality and mental health status.
Perhaps an interview with a psychologist could also be included, to give a more complete picture of each applicant.
Such screening tests could also be conducted regularly throughout the duration of the scholarship, to detect mental health issues which may arise during the course of study.
Regular contact, either face to face or via Skype, could be instituted to keep track of the students' well-being.
Perhaps peers are in the best position to provide feedback on a scholarship holder's mental health.
A buddy system could provide invaluable support, should students face serious problems, before the situation deteriorates further.
Students should not hesitate to make use of any whistle-blowing policy, should they suspect a fellow student of having serious mental health problems. It is always safer to err on the side of caution, if the students have acted in good faith.
Given the high stakes involved should things go wrong - not least of which are the hefty financial liabilities to be borne by the scholarship recipients and their guarantors - the onus is on scholarship applicants to divulge any mental health issues they may have, rather than face the severe penalties, should these issues come to light later.
Maria Loh Mun Foong (Ms)
