What advice would you give to students who feel hesitant about applying?
Apply. The consistent message from scholars is that perfect grades are not a prerequisite — what matters more is whether you can articulate your story, your fit with the organization, and why you want to spend the first years of your career there. The bond is real, so genuine alignment matters. But don't self-reject before the process does.
Yes, I would still encourage them to apply, as long as it is an organisation that they are passionate about. One key thing to remember is that most scholarships come with bonds, which means that you will be spending the first 4–6 years of your career with them. So it is important to keep career aspirations in mind.
Definitely give it a try. I believe it's more about showing your passion to join public service and displaying knowledge of Singapore's economy and policies, rather than just having good grades or extracurriculars.
Yes — especially if it's a field that you see yourself contributing to in the future, something that aligns with your personal motivations, or where you can translate your academic interests towards your career. These are all good reasons for applying.
I don't have perfect grades either. Although good academics is a pre-requisite, I would say that understanding the inherent value that you offer is a bigger proposition to scholarship providers. What about your interests, story, background, and aspirations makes you different? The most important thing is to be authentic.
Have a good story. Why this organisation? What spurs your interest in this domain? Have you demonstrated interest through activities and programmes? If you authentically believe this is the right opportunity for you, it will shine through. Also — you miss 100% of the shots you don't take, so apply even if you are not sure.
Personally, from the conversations I had with many people with scholarships, the decision to apply was rather pragmatic. They didn't necessarily need a strong inherent motivation to apply for a particular scholarship — they chose to do so as it served their own interests best, whether financially or career-wise.
Before you even worry if your grades are enough, you need to consider if the scholarship (and the eventual job) is a good fit for you. Ask yourself if you have the right aptitude for the role, and if your skills and interests match its requirements.
Yes, they should still apply. Perfect grades are not a prerequisite, and in practice they are rarely the sole deciding factor. What matters more is whether you can demonstrate strong thinking ability, intellectual curiosity, and alignment with GIC's long-term, public-mission mindset.
It is important that you are really keen on STEM — that is usually the first thing they will check. Perfect grades may not be necessary but you definitely need good grades to have them take you seriously, especially for your maths and sciences.
Yes, grades are not everything, although they are still used as an initial proxy. If you don't apply, you'd never know. Your career path and interests may change during or after university, and you will be faced with lots of uncertainty — but do what you feel is best for you at that point in time.
Yes, if it aligns with their dreams and aspirations.
These awarding bodies are primarily concerned with an applicant's potential. From their perspective, they are looking for candidates that have the ability to give the best return on their investment. Perfect grades are a strong indicator but they are not everything — character, resilience, and drive matter just as much, if not more.
What types of experiences should students engage in 2–3 years before applying?
Quality over quantity — every time. The scholars who said this most clearly were also the ones who got results. Pursue things you genuinely care about, because in the interview you'll be asked to own them. Volunteering and leadership matter, but deep engagement in one area tends to stand out more than a long list of surface-level activities. Don't treat your CV as a checklist.
Having volunteering experiences helps, as it can demonstrate to organisations — especially those in the public service — that you have a heart to serve. Leadership experiences also play a huge part, as they are looking for people who can take the lead and step up when necessary.
It is probably important to have extracurriculars that display interest and aptitude in economics and its applications in analysing public policies. A mathematical background might help as well, since the job requires quantitative techniques. Leadership experiences would be useful too.
I think showing an interest in that general field may be helpful — but I also learned that just because you interned at a place does not necessarily mean you will get that scholarship. Genuine interest matters far more than a strategically timed internship.
Definitely have extracurriculars that you are TRULY passionate about, not those you think will impress interviewers. It ultimately shows in the end if you've been doing something solely for the portfolio. What stands out is what is niche and special, because you really own the experience.
Do things you care about. If you like science it's natural that you've done research. If you like international relations you would obviously have tried MUN. Quality over quantity, to be fair — and there's always an X factor. Don't copy others, just follow your curiosity.
I don't think there's any specific type of experience a student should be striving for — if anything they should diversify the kinds of experiences they have in order to identify their own interests and motivations, and really learn about themselves.
It is important to be engaged in activities that demonstrate your interest and aptitude in foreign affairs and diplomacy. While there isn't a fixed list, it helps if your activities have direct relevance to the eventual job, as they help to tell a coherent story about who you are and where you want to go.
Students should focus on depth, intentionality, and learning — rather than accumulating credentials. The most valuable experiences are those that help students understand how they think, work with others, and grow over time. Academically rigorous coursework that builds analytical skills matters more than most extracurriculars.
For engineering-related scholarships, definitely have some STEM-related items. Going for YDSP or other DSTA/DSO events is a bigger plus. In general, it's just important that you show you are capable of getting more than just good grades — whether you're a good athlete or committed to service.
Internships are not needed, although they'll definitely help with showing vested interests. Best is to see whether your school has job-shadowing links with certain organisations. Volunteering is a must, and varied extracurriculars outside academia are important. Schools often have modules specifically designed for this.
Generally, I don't think scholarship boards are looking for a specific checklist. Diversity is highly valued. My advice would be to do what interests you — this way, even if you do not end up taking a scholarship, you would still walk away with an enjoyable experience.
Rather than focusing on racking up a large number of activities, pursue activities that you genuinely resonate with. Ultimately, these experiences will benefit your application only if they fit into the personal narrative you are trying to make. Authenticity beats volume every time.
How should students decide which scholarships to apply for?
The bond is the frame. Scholars consistently advise focusing on organisations you'd genuinely want to work for — because the interview will expose shallow motivation quickly, and because you'll actually be bonded to them. Apply to a focused shortlist rather than casting wide. Be ready to explain your rankings and your trade-offs when the panel asks.
As most scholarships involve a bond, it would be good to consider not just your studies, but also your career goals and whether you can see yourself working for that organisation for the first 4–6 years after university. Prioritise those where you feel most excited about the work.
Focus on the ones with careers you are genuinely interested in and would accept if given a scholarship — and ones that are closely aligned with your extracurriculars and talents.
Applying to too many is not necessarily a good sign. I was asked about where else I had applied and my rankings in some interviews, so be prepared to field questions like these. Prioritise places you can actually see yourself working in.
I would apply for the ones I am most likely to get based on my past experience, and places I can actually see myself in. It's ideal to want to be in an organisation where you actually do what you like and see meaningful impact. All these motivations will come up in the interview.
Up to you. I know people who succeeded with a targeted strategy — only security ministries — and people who sprayed and prayed. There is no right answer. Find mentors who know your specific situation and enjoy the process. It is self-discovery. Prioritise the ones you think you'd be a good fit for.
I think it's best to apply to a few. What you apply for should really boil down to your intrinsic interests and motivations — not prestige or what your friends are doing.
By attending scholarship fairs and getting involved in extracurriculars, you should get a sense of which areas of government you are more interested in. When you apply for a scholarship, you are also applying for a job — so interest has to play a big factor in your decision.
Apply selectively and strategically. A strong, focused application is almost always more effective than many generic ones. Focus on a select few scholarships where there is clear alignment between your interests and values and the scholarship's mission and bond obligations.
I researched a lot at once and was ready to apply for all of it, but there was only one I really wanted. Once I got the one I wanted, the rest didn't matter. Define your priority list — be honest about which one you'd actually take if offered.
Focus on a select few. Prioritise by asking: which one have I the best chance in helping deliver its mission, and which aligns most with my personal objectives? They can be in different fields as long as you can articulate the connection.
Understand your interests and what the different scholarships entail — because you would be dedicating a substantial period of time to this job. Like any job, pick one that aligns with your career aspirations.
I do believe in quality over quantity — but that said, it is always good to have multiple options. To narrow down, you need to be clear on why you are applying for a scholarship in the first place. Different scholarships have different benefits, obligations, and career trajectories.
What are the key points to highlight in a personal or academic statement?
The statement is not a CV in paragraph form. Write about one or two experiences in depth — show what you did, what you learned, and why it points toward this scholarship. The goal is to make the interviewer curious about you, not impressed by your list. Every point should tie back to why you and this particular organisation are a fit.
Highlight your strengths and how you are a good fit for their organisation.
Relevant experiences — both academic and non-academic, such as leadership — and motivations for applying. During the essay stage, also show a strong understanding of economic concepts and policies: the economic intuition behind them, their impact on the Singapore economy, and the rationale for policy decisions.
How your personal interests and experiences are aligned to the scholarship provider, and how you can contribute with your degree.
Your interests and the topics you could talk about for hours. Usually personal statements stem from a general question, but in your answer you can twist it toward what you are truly passionate about. Bring in different perspectives and niche topics that other candidates would not think of.
It varies from application to application. Iterate, iterate, iterate — and get a mentor to check for you. If you reach out, most people are very helpful.
We are conditioned by our circumstances. A critical aspect of growing up is understanding how we turned out the way we did — your story of self, your values, and how they connect to why you want to serve. That's what the panel is looking for.
The statement should not be a simple list of your experiences and achievements — it should demonstrate their applicability and relevance to the real roles of the job. Always think about how you can frame your statement to demonstrate your suitability for the scholarship.
Explain what genuinely draws you to investing, economics, or public-sector asset management — this should feel specific and personal, not generic. Use one or two experiences to show how you analyse problems and make decisions under uncertainty. Show how you think, not just what you've done.
They are very interested in extracurricular activities that show your passion in STEM. For me, it was highlighting personal engineering projects I had done in my spare time.
Your past relevant experiences, your current circumstances, what you're working on, your future goals and vision, and how the scholarship links with these goals and vision.
A personal or academic statement is a chance for the panel to get to know you, so be yourself. There will usually be guiding questions so it would be good to answer them. Share your life experiences and why you are interested.
It might feel disingenuous but the best approach is to package your experiences, values, and accomplishments in a concise piece of writing. You want to convince the readers that you are exactly what they are looking for — by using vivid, specific examples rather than abstract claims about your character.
What's the most effective way to prepare for scholarship interviews?
Three things recur: know the organisation deeply (beyond the website — reach out to employees on LinkedIn), know yourself (your motivations, your story, your trade-offs), and practice out loud. Mock interviews with people who'll push back are more valuable than reading question banks. For most scholarships, every question traces back to one of three: why us, why you, and what do you know about our domain.
The best way to prepare is to talk to people in the organisation. As they already have working experience, they can provide a glimpse of what it's like to work there. I would definitely recommend creating a personal "cheat sheet" and doing mock interviews — they really helped me.
Refresh your memory of A-Level Economics content, read up on current affairs (both domestic and global), and be familiar with the work of the Economist Service. Understanding how Singapore's policy environment works is essential — the interviewers will probe this.
Speaking to people who are working in the organisation gives you an idea of the work culture and general goals, which will help you understand how you may fit into that environment. I personally didn't use question banks or mock interviews — I found that reflecting deeply on my own motivations was more useful.
I did a lot of research and reflection, along with mind-mapping, into questions that are relevant. I classified questions into three buckets: leadership, domestic affairs, and current affairs. Mind-mapping ensured I had knowledge about each area. All questions at the interview are some variation of these three.
Brainstorm possible questions, prepare answers, and iterate again. Do mock interviews with seniors or family members. All questions are iterations of: 1) Why do you want us? 2) Why should we want you? 3) Domain-specific knowledge. Build a cheat sheet. Do 5–10 mock rounds.
Always best to look them up online and get into contact with people who work at the organisation — their personal insights can be very beneficial in your interview. I consolidated everything about myself and created a personal "cheat sheet" which I found extremely helpful.
"Soft" knowledge means training yourself to develop opinions and insights on world events and current affairs — going beyond merely being informed. Read up on geopolitical hotspots and form views on them. "Hard" knowledge means knowing MFA's priorities, Singapore's foreign policy principles, and being able to discuss them specifically.
Go beyond surface-level facts. Understand GIC's role as a global sovereign wealth fund and its long-term mandate. Read recent speeches, annual reports, and coverage of how GIC has navigated different market cycles. Be able to connect Singapore's broader economic context to GIC's investment philosophy.
Research all three organisations — DSTA, DSO, CSIT — and think about which department in each you would like to work in and why. Find out about things those departments have been working on so you can show you've done your homework. A question you prepare in advance that you'd like to ask them can go a long way.
The organisational website and relevant social media platforms give you a broad understanding. For depth, reach out to people on LinkedIn — not just scholars — and find out what the daily job actually entails. I'd recommend a personal cheatsheet: know yourself as well as you know the organisation.
Understand yourself and why you are applying. Look up what the different agencies do. Ask past or present scholars about their experience. Knowing what you are signing up for — and being able to articulate it — shows the panel you've thought this through.
Researching the organisation is crucial: look for their mission and values, specific areas they specialise in that you align with, and what they are looking for in their scholars. Beyond that, LinkedIn makes reaching out to existing scholars fairly accessible — most are quite happy to speak to applicants.
What was your experience during the final or panel interview?
Most final panels run 25–40 minutes with 3–12 interviewers. The environment can feel intimidating — senior leadership, formal settings — but scholars consistently describe the experience as more conversational than expected once it begins. Treat it as a discussion, not an interrogation. If you're being asked hard questions, that often signals the panel is seriously considering you.
There were three interviewers. Although the environment seemed tense, once I got to talking with the interviewers everything felt much calmer. It helps to think of it as a conversation, rather than an interview. My session lasted about 30 minutes, and I was asked a wide range of questions.
5 interviewers, about a 30-minute session. There were 1–2 questions about motivations for applying, but most questions were academic — surrounding economic concepts, their applications in the real world, economic policy recommendations, and current affairs. Several questions were based on things I had mentioned in my application.
It was quite formal — we were in a boardroom with about 4–5 directors and someone from HR taking minutes. The session lasted about 30 minutes, where I was given some hypothetical questions and asked to take a stand on certain contentious issues.
For the PSC interview board, there were 12 interviewers and it was quite terrifying to be the only applicant in the room. It lasted 35 minutes. The PSC interview feels like a stream of consciousness — they pick up on interesting things you say and probe deeper. Have lots of anecdotes ready, and try to be natural rather than rehearsed.
Mine was a Zoom panel, about 4–5 interviewers for 30 minutes. One of the questions they asked was a PSC essay question — so the interview and application are connected. Be prepared for that.
The environment was honestly not that stressful — my interviewers were very nice to me, although I suspect this depends on the organisation and service. There were about 8–10 people, but only two individuals questioned me. The rest were observing. They asked me about my motivations, experiences, and why I wanted to enter the Teaching Service specifically.
I had 2 panel interviews with 3 interviewers each, lasting around 30 minutes. The questions covered personal motivations, current affairs, and suitability for the job. The atmosphere was relaxed and the discussion was relatively free-flowing — though you have some control over this too, depending on how naturally you guide the conversation.
The environment was professional but not intimidating. Interviewers were engaged and attentive, and the discussion felt more conversational than adversarial. Multiple interviewers were on the panel, each focusing on different aspects — motivation, thinking process, and values. The session lasted roughly 30–45 minutes.
Mine was during COVID, so it was a Zoom call with the CE of DSTA and the CEO of DSO, along with the head of HR. It was about 30 minutes, but they were super nice — not intimidating at all. They asked questions about my interest in DSTA's work and projects I had worked on.
The environment can feel tense at first since you're being interviewed by senior leadership — but it's important to remember that they see potential in you, and at the end of the day, they are humans too. The interview should feel like a discussion about your future, not a pressure-cooker test.
The panel was friendly. You can usually expect the senior executives of the agency to be present. The length of the session depends on what you share — follow-up questions can extend it significantly. You may not be able to answer every question perfectly, and that's okay — they are assessing how you think, not just what you know.
The environment of the panel interview is certainly intimidating — you will feel like you are under the microscope, being bombarded with difficult questions. But a senior once told me: if the questions feel difficult, it is likely a sign that the panel is seriously considering you and wants to see how you handle pressure. That reframe helped me a lot.