Student Exchange Programme - Sharing

Last semester, I had the wonderful opportunity to participate in the study exchange programme with King’s College London (KCL), United Kingdom. The programme spanned 5 months, allowing me to take courses across different departments at KCL. It came as a surprise to me that it still took me a while to adjust to a new environment, despite this being my second time studying abroad.

I spent my free time walking the streets, watching plays, seeing people stroll by at the city gardens, and visiting nearby towns. It was very interesting to learn of the struggle to make a name for oneself for people who emigrated to London in hope of a better life. From my perspective, London is a maze and its dwellers are mere travellers. Some shiver in the cold, invisible to the gaze of the gods above. Some are finding a place to rest, after having experienced many ups and downs. And some, wish to break through.

My experiences studying at KCL have further supported my belief in interdisciplinary education. Even though KCL has not started to practice interdisciplinary education at a university level (since students can only take courses of their primary major and language courses), there is still an acknowledgement of the need for collaborations between scientists of different sub-fields in Biology to understand diseases. In one class on Alzheimer’s Disease, the lecturers highlighted the importance of collaboration between biochemists, immunologists, and pathologists to study pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s Disease. Besides glutamatergic system dysregulation, oxidative stress, and tau and amyloid β protein aggregation, there has been a recent focus on the role of inflammation and autoimmunity in causing neuronal cell death in Alzheimer’s Disease. Apart from the cross-collaboration between different sub-fields of biology, I believe a cross-collaboration between different fields (not only sub-fields of one field) will prove beneficial to the progress of a student in understanding the concept thoroughly. In one Epistemology class, a discussion on the demerits of Karl Popper’s falsificationism concerning confirmation bias was halted because some students commented that they could not provide an opinion because they were not well-versed in the study of Physics. It was saddening to see a heated discussion being abandoned by such bright minds for a reason that could have been avoided (if only the students were familiar with how physics experiments were often conducted). As a student at NUS College, I am often faced with the question of the practical benefits of pursuing an interdisciplinary education, and I sometimes doubt my rationale. But I would like to pose the question in another way. Is a non-interdisciplinary education a better alternative? Does a non-interdisciplinary education not have its demise?

I was glad to have met great teammates for a project in a Biology course at KCL. After the exam had ended, we met for a drink at a local pub. Immersing myself in the space, I found myself contemplating the roles of pubs as a venue for social gatherings in the UK, despite not personally enjoying alcoholic drinks. Pubs offer a physical, accessible, and multi-purpose place for bouncing ideas off each other, without the elitist and close-off ambience that most single-purpose-built venues often carry. At these pubs, it is not rare to encounter discussions of sciences, politics, personal life, and the list goes on. I had lots of fun discussing recent areas of scientific studies with my groupmates, from research on ageing targeting senescent cells to abuse of supplements that are branded to boost hormonal production in young people. The openness of the space appeared to “open” our willingness to share our opinions on the topic. Sometimes, sitting in a seminar room, I felt discouraged from voicing my opinion. The setting of a seminar room somehow made me feel as if my opinion would be “assessed” rather than “heard”. Yet, the space provided by the pub appeared to invite us to share our ideas more willingly than a conventional classroom setting (or was it the effect of alcohol?). Witnessing an academic discussion naturally arising in an informal setting was truly delightful – and we happily chatted!

On my trip to Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire, I marvelled at the development of Oxford and Cambridge universities from being institutions for mass education of the public into institutions in pursuit of excellence (for the most elitist of society?). Most of the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge were established to take in students willing to dedicate their lives to academia, regardless of their background. These colleges provided those students full tuition and a stipend for living expenses, which were funded by the endowment of the nobility. Nowadays, despite the effort made by the universities to reach out to students of a low-income background, gaining entry to and pursuing an undergraduate degree at OxBridge is prohibitive for such students. At the end of the day, I found myself pondering over the relationship between the democratisation of education and the pursuit of excellence. Is it the case that once an academic institution becomes prestigious and harbours great thinkers, it will shut its door to students of a less fortunate background? Reflecting on my journey at NUS and NUSC, I am deeply grateful for all the opportunities and support that I have received. And I cannot help but wonder, what the future holds for NUSC ten or more years down the road. Does history repeat, or reverberate?

June 2025, Vietnam.