Scholarship Bond 2

There were a lot of interesting emails between my friend and I on this topic.
I think there are a couple of points though, I like to make clear about my views.

I will put it on record here that personally, I do not agree with bonded scholarships. I do recognize that scholarships represent opportunities, and personally i am grateful for my chance to go abroad for my studies. It gave me dreams, which I am still chasing to this very day. Those 4 years spent abroad, while not necessarily the absolute "best" years of my life, they were definitely the most important to me.

For my undergraduate years, I took a government scholarship and in return, I was bonded to work with the body for a number of years. For my Masters, I accepted a bond free fellowship from the university. After my Masters, I came back to Singapore to work for a number of years, before breaking my bond and going on to work for a new venture capital group in Singapore.

The experience of receiving a free education at my Masters institution, left a very deep impression on me. I was frankly very surprised how much the school went out of its way, to help me pay for the tuition and bills. They awarded me a full fellowship, and all these for absolutely no conditions, apart from wishing me the best and wanting me to do well in my research and studies. They could very easily have taken another student in my place who could afford to pay for his/her education, but they told me not to drop my place when I told them I could not afford the school fees. And I am not even American!

This contrasts so starkly against what I received for my undergraduate scholarship, which came preloaded with a whole lot of conditions. I am not necessarily saying that one is better than the other, but I cannot but help getting this impression, that my Masters institution is far more interested in developing me as a talent, than my undergraduate scholarship board, which seems far more interested in just retaining me as a future employee for them. While the intentions of my Masters instituation may not be entirely altruistic (they may really like to just have the best students as it may help improve the instition's standings), its arguably far more altruistic than my scholarship board. There is this implicit trust that they gave me, that is wholly absent in the case with the scholarship board.

It is this stark comparison, that ultimately led to my rejection that there is any semblance of morality being attached to a bonded scholarship. Ultimately, there is only contractual integrity here. The intentions of the scholarship board is devoid of altruism, but geared entirely towards selfish intentions of empowering its own organization. If its not altruistic, then there can be little more I should honour apart from the contractual paper.

Ultimately I am not criticizing one entity over another. But on a very personal level, the gratitude I have for my Masters institution far far outweighs that I have for my scholarship board.

Scholarship Bond

My friend and I are having this "row" about whether its right for a scholar to break his/her bond. We have often argued about this, he is always of the view that its wrong to break the bond, because its a promise. My arguement is that a scholarship contract is no different from an employment contract.

My views:
1) the organization did not give the scholarship for charity / reward sake. They did it for selfish reasons, no less selfish than the reasons leading to any scholar choosing to break their bond. They simply want to retain talent!!

2) Treat both sides equally, then one can see that what is there, is just a simple piece of legal paper. There is no servitude to the organization the scholar did not honour, or gratitude that he/she has ignored.

3) A common argument is that by breaking the bond, the person is denying another person who may want the scholarship, the opportunity. However, is this any different in a normal job situation? A person in applying for a job and getting the job, did he also not deny some other people of that job? so does that mean one can never leave the job? Get serious, opportunitiy costs exist in ALL situations.

4) Lets look at the similarities between an employment contract and a scholarship contract.
Employment contract
in the contract, its stated one will serve XXX Corp faithfully etc.
one's pay is xxxx subject to revision
and should one choose to leave, u must serve 1 month's notice or pay 1 month's pay.
words along that line.

Scholarship contract.
one will study at here and there and uphold the scholarship's name etc. after studies one is bonded to work in xxx for xx years.
the stipend is xxxx, scholarship board will pay for tuition
should one choose to leave the scholarship board, liable to pay xxx in damages.

its written in pretty much exactly the same fashion.

its advertised in exactly the same fashion. put an ad in the newspaper, people apply for it, go interview. some get it, some don't.

My friend's views:
He basically recognizes there are similarities but he points to the moral obligations. His main point is that the moral obligation arises because the scholarship body paid for one's education which is a further stepping stone for onein life. companies don't, plain and simple.

My response to this:
Many companies send their employees for training too, which could really be career extending skill like valuation, advance job knowledge etc. Does this mean that these employees can never leave the organization? Or should one fall back again to the contract at hand?

Ultimately morals are relative, but contracts are not. I find it highly offensive when one claims that scholars who choose to break their bonds did not honour their promise. They did. They paid up the liabilities stated clearly on their contracts, and left.

Do not place the scholarship bodies on a higher moral pedestal than the scholars. If they like to claim that higher ground, then there should not even have been a legal contract to begin with.

I like to hear views from my readers. Thanks.