2013 P1 Registration Exercise for 2014 In-Take

[.036281.036281.036281]

wiltanws:

crusader:

Thanks for sharing.

The basis for not conducting the ballot in MGS and ACJS it that if balloting were to take place it would be unfair to the parents of singletons as the twins would be guaranteed a place regardless of whether the twins are drawn earlier or last which is not the case for singletons.

So in the case of ACJS, there were 47 vacancies, 48 boys (including twins). As twins would be assigned 1 common ballot number, there would be 47 numbers.

If twins were drawn say from the 1st to the 46th try, balloting would have to stop as all 47 places would be filled. If the twins were drawn last, there would be 48 places.

In short the twins are guaranteed a place whether they are drawn earlier or last, while singletons are guaranteed a place if and only if the twins are drawn last (which is extremely remote).

Balloting cannot proceed because it would then be an unlevel playing field.

The MGS and ACJS scenarios are extremely rare, where vacancies were exceeded by just 1 slot because of the twins.

MOE made the right call not to have balloting.

Cheers.

This explanation make sense

But does acsp has twins/triplets applicants? Some of the posts wee talking about acsp.

If acsp doesn't have twins/triplets then it is still a :?

Phase 2b n 2c supposed to have 24 vacancies each but now phase 2b has 26 successful applicants while the vacancies in acsp is now 22.

If the school's intention is not to disappoint the extra 2 applicants in 2b, then it has taken away the joy of those in 2c.

I :scared: the thoughts of all other schools taking in extras in earlier phases and reduce further the no. Of vacancies for the phases right at the bottom.

[pirate]

crusader:

Thanks for sharing.


The basis for not conducting the ballot in MGS and ACJS it that if balloting were to take place it would be unfair to the parents of singletons as the twins would be guaranteed a place regardless of whether the twins are drawn earlier or last which is not the case for singletons.

So in the case of ACJS, there were 47 vacancies, 48 boys (including twins). As twins would be assigned 1 common ballot number, there would be 47 numbers.

If twins were drawn say from the 1st to the 46th try, balloting would have to stop as all 47 places would be filled. If the twins were drawn last, there would be 48 places.

In short the twins are guaranteed a place whether they are drawn earlier or last, while singletons are guaranteed a place if and only if the twins are drawn last (which is extremely remote).

Balloting cannot proceed because it would then be an unlevel playing field.

The MGS and ACJS scenarios are extremely rare, where vacancies were exceeded by just 1 slot because of the twins.

MOE made the right call not to have balloting.

Cheers.

MOE's call (if it was indeed MOE's call) may be fair to the singletons in Phase 2B, but it is unfair to those in phase 2C. That extra place should not have been taken from phase 2C. It should just have been an extra place created to cater to that rare scenario. This is yet another example of MOE officials failing to see the bigger picture.

[wiltanws]

pirate:

crusader:

Thanks for sharing.


The basis for not conducting the ballot in MGS and ACJS it that if balloting were to take place it would be unfair to the parents of singletons as the twins would be guaranteed a place regardless of whether the twins are drawn earlier or last which is not the case for singletons.

So in the case of ACJS, there were 47 vacancies, 48 boys (including twins). As twins would be assigned 1 common ballot number, there would be 47 numbers.

If twins were drawn say from the 1st to the 46th try, balloting would have to stop as all 47 places would be filled. If the twins were drawn last, there would be 48 places.

In short the twins are guaranteed a place whether they are drawn earlier or last, while singletons are guaranteed a place if and only if the twins are drawn last (which is extremely remote).

Balloting cannot proceed because it would then be an unlevel playing field.

The MGS and ACJS scenarios are extremely rare, where vacancies were exceeded by just 1 slot because of the twins.

MOE made the right call not to have balloting.

Cheers.

MOE's call (if it was indeed MOE's call) may be fair to the singletons in Phase 2B, but it is unfair to those in phase 2C. That extra place should not have been taken from phase 2C. It should just have been an extra place created to cater to that rare scenario. This is yet another example of MOE officials failing to see the bigger picture.

I agree on this totally

[pirate]

wiltanws:

I agree on this totally

Luckily, I am already done with this ping pong ball thingey last year. So, it is not my problem. :boogie:

[mummy bear]

I believe ACSP had triplets registering in phase 2B

[crusader]

pirate:

crusader:

Thanks for sharing.


The basis for not conducting the ballot in MGS and ACJS it that if balloting were to take place it would be unfair to the parents of singletons as the twins would be guaranteed a place regardless of whether the twins are drawn earlier or last which is not the case for singletons.

So in the case of ACJS, there were 47 vacancies, 48 boys (including twins). As twins would be assigned 1 common ballot number, there would be 47 numbers.

If twins were drawn say from the 1st to the 46th try, balloting would have to stop as all 47 places would be filled. If the twins were drawn last, there would be 48 places.

In short the twins are guaranteed a place whether they are drawn earlier or last, while singletons are guaranteed a place if and only if the twins are drawn last (which is extremely remote).

Balloting cannot proceed because it would then be an unlevel playing field.

The MGS and ACJS scenarios are extremely rare, where vacancies were exceeded by just 1 slot because of the twins.

MOE made the right call not to have balloting.

Cheers.

MOE's call (if it was indeed MOE's call) may be fair to the singletons in Phase 2B, but it is unfair to those in phase 2C. That extra place should not have been taken from phase 2C. It should just have been an extra place created to cater to that rare scenario. This is yet another example of MOE officials failing to see the bigger picture.

Yes, I agree that an extra place should have been allocated without reducing the vacancies in later phases.

In fact, the ideal scenario should be that whenever non-singletons are drawn (where applicants exceed vacancies by more than 1) or where balloting is waived as in the MGS scenario, the extra space(s) required should be created without diluting the pool in later phases.

Cheers

[crusader]

mummy bear:

I believe ACSP had triplets registering in phase 2B

Thanks for sharing.

What amazing odds.

MGS, ACJS, and now ACPS (all Methodist schools too) - no balloting because applicants (involving twins/triplets) exceeded vacancies by the exact number required.

Cheers

[wiltanws]

crusader:

mummy bear:

I believe ACSP had triplets registering in phase 2B

Thanks for sharing.

What amazing odds.

MGS, ACJS, and now ACPS (all Methodist schools too) - no balloting because applicants (involving twins/triplets) exceeded vacancies by the exact number required.

Cheers

how abt plmgs? there was balloting and the numbers also ended up with 2B having 3 more places than 2c.

[poohger]

crusader:

pirate:

[quote=\"crusader\"]Thanks for sharing.


The basis for not conducting the ballot in MGS and ACJS it that if balloting were to take place it would be unfair to the parents of singletons as the twins would be guaranteed a place regardless of whether the twins are drawn earlier or last which is not the case for singletons.

So in the case of ACJS, there were 47 vacancies, 48 boys (including twins). As twins would be assigned 1 common ballot number, there would be 47 numbers.

If twins were drawn say from the 1st to the 46th try, balloting would have to stop as all 47 places would be filled. If the twins were drawn last, there would be 48 places.

In short the twins are guaranteed a place whether they are drawn earlier or last, while singletons are guaranteed a place if and only if the twins are drawn last (which is extremely remote).

Balloting cannot proceed because it would then be an unlevel playing field.

The MGS and ACJS scenarios are extremely rare, where vacancies were exceeded by just 1 slot because of the twins.

MOE made the right call not to have balloting.

Cheers.

MOE's call (if it was indeed MOE's call) may be fair to the singletons in Phase 2B, but it is unfair to those in phase 2C. That extra place should not have been taken from phase 2C. It should just have been an extra place created to cater to that rare scenario. This is yet another example of MOE officials failing to see the bigger picture.

Yes, I agree that an extra place should have been allocated without reducing the vacancies in later phases.

In fact, the ideal scenario should be that whenever non-singletons are drawn (where applicants exceed vacancies by more than 1) or where balloting is waived as in the MGS scenario, the extra space(s) required should be created without diluting the pool in later phases.

Cheers[/quote]I was shocked to see that extra space was taken from phase 2C. I spoke to a MOE officer on Wed and was informed that no deduction of space from phase 2C will be done. And school will cater for the additional student for this case.

Will have to call MOE again.

[starfruit]

I am also curious to know about the PLMGS numbers as I understand it was 4 PRs balloting for the 2 seats. One set was a twin?