* Nanyang JC (NYJC)
-
mindays:
You have been misleading readers since you were in the other thread about A level results 2015.ParkYuni:
[quote=\"Crester\"]
2) UAP is 81 points
This batch COP was 7(Sci), 8(Art). The latest results justified this batch COP. The other JC with similar COP of 7,8 I read from another Kiasu Forum has almost similar 'A' level results( UAP of 80 as reported).
The other JC you are referring to above is either ACJC or TJC or both.
The forummer who posted the result of ACJC claimed its UAP was 81.9 which was denied by you adamantly. Since your child is in NYJC and you were not in ACJC when its result was released and the UAP wasn't published, how are you so sure it was not 81.9? Also, TJC did not reveal its UAP in its website and someone mentioned it was 'around' 80 which could be 81 or 82, you insisted it was 80.
Please be truthful when you post such figures in a public forum in future, or don't post if you are unsure, as many parents need to rely on them to help make better decisions for their kids.
By what you are doing now, you are deemed to be desperately trying to push NYJC and raise its popularity which is not a gracious act.
I have been observing this thread for quite some time. Let's call a spade a spade. NYJC's UAP as announced by P, is 81. Other JC's may not have released their UAP. It is of utter speculation about \"TJC\" and \"ACJC\" s' UAP which brought much confusion to most forummers. I agree with you that all forummers in KP should be mindful of what they say, to be truthful and honest. By your response, you seem to undermine NYJC, which is not a gracious act.[/quote]Observing this thread alone is not enough as you won't have any head and tail how the 'debates' come about. You will understand how Park came out with that 'gracious act' phrase if you have been following the thread I attached earlier.
We have no intention to undermine NYJC. On the contrary, we are trying to prevent other JCs from being undermined by someone here who was trying desperately to prove NYJC's worth. -
mindays:
My niece had indeed inferred uap to be 80.xx as many of her friends had obtained uap of less than 80. I mentioned it 'could be' with the reason stated.candyfan:
It seems like you still do not get it. My niece said the 3H2 distinctions % wasn't mentioned. You had already admitted it was an estimation on your part as you do not know the cohort size too. I did not say my niece did not hear about the UAP. She interpreted the UAP as a round-off figure. The actual UAP could be 80.xx. Do you understand now?
Thank you for sharing with us what your niece has shared with you. I would like to ascertain facts before discussing further.
FACT
2015 NYJC's UAP = 81 (credible source; from the P's mouth)
OPINION
Candyfan's niece inferred that NYJC's UAP < 81 (80.xx). - On what basis? Is this a fact? Is this source reliable? This is a judgement from candyfan's niece (probably a J1 or J2 girl).
If crester can brush off other's claim that acjc uap is 81.9 as shown in this thread:
http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum ... &start=310
and forcefully changed it to 80 as his/her friend's claim is more reliable to him/her, why couldn't my niece make an inference? It is an estimate afterall and more reasonable than crester's. -
I agree that there is no difference between the standards of teaching for nyjc, acjc and tjc.
Due to the latest cop of 6, 7 and 9 for nyjc, acjc and tjc science stream, respectively, speculation has it that nyjc has higher value-added into its jc and hence its surge in popularity. Now it is proven to be untrue.[/quote]
That is an outright irresponsible post by our dear forummer 25HMOM.
You have misunderstood me because you have no idea what had happened in another thread. I have attached the link below if you want to know what had been discussed. Crester did not seem to understand that he had been misleading and thus we had to continue here.
1.) Please define the statement of having almost the same A level results. Any clear evidence to prove? Distinction rates? UAP?... If yes, please justify. If no, you have confused many with your downright unaccountable statement.
There were forummers who said that ACJC UAP is 81.9 and TJC UAP being around 80.
Look at mochachan's post in this link:
http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum ... &start=370
[color=#BF0000]Same goes to you if you denied what the forummers here had shared.[/coloured
2.) Standard of teaching. What do you mean? Will you kindly elaborate on that? That is a point without head and tail. Yet another undefined statement.
It means the quality of teachers in these JCs are at par. Chip and Dale had earlier said in this forum that NYJC has the highest value-addedness. The recent A level results had not proven so, if you were to compare the UAP of NYJC (81), ACJC (81.9) and TJC (someone said around 80 but stellar results from TJC website of 3H2 distinctions 152 + unknown 4H2 distinctions with approx 600 pupils in cohort). Crester trying to mislead by ranking NYJC in the 7th place with ACJC and TJC trailing behind.
3.) Thank you for being such an IRRESPONSIBLE forummer that should be booted out before any serious tragedy happen. How on earth is 2015' s COP related to 2015 A LEVEL RESULTS? Are you trying to say that the new J1s in 2016 will take their A levels in the same year. This is pretty hilarious and I know i shouldn't scorn you for that. But.... So, to CORRECT you, the 2015 A LEVEL RESULTS are based on students who got in via 2013's JAE. ACJC: 6 SCI, NYJC: 7 SCI, TJC 7 SCI.
It's a pure mistake which I had already explained and corrected. If you are talking about responsibility, then you should clean your own backyard first by booting out your own people Crester in the first place who tried to falsely glorify NYJC despite explaining to him/her at the other thread .
4.) Do you know that you are speculating about NYJC not being a highly value added school? Please give us statistics to substantiate your point. If not, your post is baseless and is not backed up with SUFFICIENT CONCRETE EVIDENCE to JUSTIFY.
I have already substantiate our stance. Now it's your turn to convince us how highly value added NYJC is as compared to other JCs.
5.) It is proven that your post is untrue of facts.
Same goes to you if you refused to accept what the forummers here had shared, just like Crester. [/quote][/quote]
I did keep up to the thread that you have replied with the link. It is of a terrible mistake of yours. It is wrong for you to assume such a vital point like this, which justifies how you see and interpret things.
If you have noticed, my key word used was \"CONCRETE\" (evidence), it means that it is a fact and not a hear-say data. So after beating about the bush, are you 100% sure that the UAP of ACJC is 81.9 and the UAP of TJC around 80?
Ok, giving you the benefit of doubts, lets assume TJC's UAP and ACJC's to be 80+ and 81.9 respectively, the results can be explained. ACJC's COP then was 6 while NY and TJ were both 7 for science. (+1 for ARTS). Isnt it logical for AC to score better results than NY and TJ? But the fact that NY got 81 for its UAP as compared to TJ's 80+, I can safely come to a point that NY > TJ in terms of results. I hope this addresses the ranking issues that you may PROBABLY have.
Now, you have impressed us with your attitude. It's rude of you to assume that Crester is \"my people\". What an assumption!!! I am merely stating facts and am not in support of any JCs. So right now, you are irresponsible to responsibly say that I am with Crester and am against you. With my above point, are you gonna say that I falsely glorify NY's achievements? In short, you are irresponsible for your above post and should apologise to all forummers out here who spent their valuable time reading nothing but a biased piece of post that would amount to worthless bits of scraps (which could possibly fit my backyard).
I am not in any position to say that NY is highly value added for the 2015 A level results. MOE has scraped the award. NO ONE WILL POSSIBLY KNOW. If you would want me to give you an answer, you might want to do your homework before asking such redundant requests. This means that your point of NY not being a highly value added, is a GROUNDLESS point. This is a form of IRRESPONSIBILTY. If you have made a mistake, own it up, admit and move on. Don't create a facade and cover your dirty act.
Not only are you uncertain of your facts (other than your so called - hearsay), you are being an IRRESPONSIBLE forummer.
Hit me back with your points, justify them. Do not confuse the rest -
mookata:
Regarding the drop in COP, I agree that it's mostly due to the school's publicity effort rather than A level results. However with each batch having such a different group of students every year, we cant expect the J2s with a slightly higher COP to match up to the J1s when they do their As next year. The tutors have to refine and change their methods literally every year to suit an ever improving demographic, so give some time for the COP to settle down.mindays:
Sorry, mookata, as I am about to drag you into this dispute. I know you have been following the A level results ksp thread and has better insight of this whole issue mindays has brought up.
4.) Do you know that you are speculating about NYJC not being a highly value added school? Please give us statistics to substantiate your point. If not, your post is baseless and is not backed up with SUFFICIENT CONCRETE EVIDENCE to JUSTIFY.
mindays, to be fair, you should also question your fellow nyjcian mookata to give his/her version on the highlighted sentence he/she has posted above.
We were so comfortable with his/her assurance there that we did not notice we were speculating nyjc results or being offensive at all. -
candyfan:
My niece had indeed inferred uap to be 80.xx as many of her friends had obtained uap of less than 80. I mentioned it 'could be' with the reason stated.mindays:
[quote=\"candyfan\"]It seems like you still do not get it. My niece said the 3H2 distinctions % wasn't mentioned. You had already admitted it was an estimation on your part as you do not know the cohort size too. I did not say my niece did not hear about the UAP. She interpreted the UAP as a round-off figure. The actual UAP could be 80.xx. Do you understand now?
Thank you for sharing with us what your niece has shared with you. I would like to ascertain facts before discussing further.
FACT
2015 NYJC's UAP = 81 (credible source; from the P's mouth)
OPINION
Candyfan's niece inferred that NYJC's UAP < 81 (80.xx). - On what basis? Is this a fact? Is this source reliable? This is a judgement from candyfan's niece (probably a J1 or J2 girl).
If crester can brush off other's claim that acjc uap is 81.9 as shown in this thread:
http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum ... &start=310
and forcefully changed it to 80 as his/her friend's claim is more reliable to him/her, why couldn't my niece make an inference? It is an estimate afterall and more reasonable than crester's.[/quote]Now that you mention, many of her friends got less than 80. May I ask whether the data is representative enough? Much as I would unwilling like to share this piece of common sense information to you (or your niece), there are many graduates in NY who got above 81 RP. I can only conclude that your niece mixes with graduates that got lower than 80 and has largely ignored the fact of those who got above 81/82/83... RP.
BUT, lets come down to facts. It is through the P's mouth that the UAP is 81. Accept it as 81. Do not try to influence others with the \"80.xx\" point.
And, i am not saying that crester is correct to forcefully strike off claims of other JCs' UAP. (Since when did i say it?) - this shows your sense of misinterpretation which could possibly create unnesscary misunderstanding. One thing to note is that both Crester and that forummer have their \"insider information\". We do not know the FACTS. -
mindays:
You have made a terrible mistake by using strong words to cover your weak argument. I demand an apology from you, mindays.
I did keep up to the thread that you have replied with the link. It is of a terrible mistake of yours. It is wrong for you to assume such a vital point like this, which justifies how you see and interpret things.
If you have noticed, my key word used was \"CONCRETE\" (evidence), it means that it is a fact and not a hear-say data. So after beating about the bush, are you 100% sure that the UAP of ACJC is 81.9 and the UAP of TJC around 80?
Ok, giving you the benefit of doubts, lets assume TJC's UAP and ACJC's to be 80+ and 81.9 respectively, the results can be explained. ACJC's COP then was 6 while NY and TJ were both 7 for science. (+1 for ARTS). Isnt it logical for AC to score better results than NY and TJ? But the fact that NY got 81 for its UAP as compared to TJ's 80+, I can safely come to a point that NY > TJ in terms of results. I hope this addresses the ranking issues that you may PROBABLY have.
Now, you have impressed us with your attitude. It's rude of you to assume that Crester is \"my people\". What an assumption!!! I am merely stating facts and am not in support of any JCs. So right no, you are irresponsible to responsibly say that I am with Crester and am against you. With my above point, are you gonna say that I falsely glorify NY's achievements? In short, you are irresponsible for your above post and should apologise to all forummers out here who spent their valuable time reading nothing but a biased piece of post that would amount to worthless bits of scraps (which could possobly fit my backyard).
I am not in any position to say that NY is highly value added for the 2015 A level results. MOE has scraped the award. NO ONE WILL POSSIBLY KNOW. If you would want me to give you an answer, you might want to do your homework before asking such redundant requests. This means that your point of NY not being a highly value added, is a GROUNDLESS point. This is a form of IRRESPONSIBILTY. If you have made a mistake, own it up, admit and move on. Don't create a facade and cover your dirty act.
Not only are you uncertain of your facts (other than your so called - hearsay), you are being an IRRESPONSIBLE forummer.
Hit me back with your points, justify them. Do not confuse the rest
You cannot simply based on UAP alone to rank your precious nyjc above others. Morever their differences are little. We are talking about UAP 80+ to 81. Why do you see it as a mountain from a molehill that I am misleading? Aren't 80+ to 81 similar? There are many other factors such as the number of perfect scorers, the % of at least 3H2 distinctions achievers, number of retainees etc if you want to rank like what crester is trying to do to mislead all forummers.
If you have no interest in nyjc, you wouldn't have gone berserk like you did. But yet you do not have the guts to admit.
People are wondering how NYJC COP could improve so much and are curious to know more. We are providing some insights with facts we know. If we deliberately uplift acjc and tjc uap from say 75 to 80+, you could accuse us of misleading. But the fact is that acjc & tjc are more established in terms of results in the recent past. You can't deny these facts and claimed that only nyjc P words are truthful.
I do not wish to carry on any conversation with you until you have cooled down. Is it necessary for you to carry yourself this way? :? -
Someone is trying to shut the mouth of everyone who gives realistic and useful information that is against the interest of nyjc. Why? To influence others that nyjc improvement in COP is due solely to its results.
I strongly believe this forummer is not a ‘family of nyjc’ (as I can gather that nyjc people are nice or mild in character).
This someone could be bearing grudges against acjc or tjc and is therefore using nyjc to beat them.
Please ignore those harsh and intimidating posts by this person. -
25HMOM:
You have made a terrible mistake by using strong words to cover your weak argument. I demand an apology from you, mindays.mindays:
I did keep up to the thread that you have replied with the link. It is of a terrible mistake of yours. It is wrong for you to assume such a vital point like this, which justifies how you see and interpret things.
If you have noticed, my key word used was \"CONCRETE\" (evidence), it means that it is a fact and not a hear-say data. So after beating about the bush, are you 100% sure that the UAP of ACJC is 81.9 and the UAP of TJC around 80?
Ok, giving you the benefit of doubts, lets assume TJC's UAP and ACJC's to be 80+ and 81.9 respectively, the results can be explained. ACJC's COP then was 6 while NY and TJ were both 7 for science. (+1 for ARTS). Isnt it logical for AC to score better results than NY and TJ? But the fact that NY got 81 for its UAP as compared to TJ's 80+, I can safely come to a point that NY > TJ in terms of results. I hope this addresses the ranking issues that you may PROBABLY have.
Now, you have impressed us with your attitude. It's rude of you to assume that Crester is \"my people\". What an assumption!!! I am merely stating facts and am not in support of any JCs. So right no, you are irresponsible to responsibly say that I am with Crester and am against you. With my above point, are you gonna say that I falsely glorify NY's achievements? In short, you are irresponsible for your above post and should apologise to all forummers out here who spent their valuable time reading nothing but a biased piece of post that would amount to worthless bits of scraps (which could possibly fit my backyard).
I am not in any position to say that NY is highly value added for the 2015 A level results. MOE has scraped the award. NO ONE WILL POSSIBLY KNOW. If you would want me to give you an answer, you might want to do your homework before asking such redundant requests. This means that your point of NY not being a highly value added, is a GROUNDLESS point. This is a form of IRRESPONSIBILTY. If you have made a mistake, own it up, admit and move on. Don't create a facade and cover your dirty act.
Not only are you uncertain of your facts (other than your so called - hearsay), you are being an IRRESPONSIBLE forummer.
Hit me back with your points, justify them. Do not confuse the rest
You cannot simply based on UAP alone to rank your precious nyjc above others. Morever their differences are little. We are talking about UAP 80+ to 81. Why do you see it as a mountain from a molehill that I am misleading? Aren't 80+ to 81 similar? There are many other factors such as the number of perfect scorers, the % of at least 3H2 distinctions achievers, number of retainees etc if you want to rank like what crester is trying to do to mislead all forummers.
If you have no interest in nyjc, you wouldn't have gone berserk like you did. But yet you do not have the guts to admit.
People are wondering how NYJC COP could improve so much and are curious to know more. We are providing some insights with facts we know. If we deliberately uplift acjc and tjc uap from say 75 to 80+, you could accuse us of misleading. But the fact is that acjc & tjc are more established in terms of results in the recent past. You can't deny these facts and claimed that only nyjc P words are truthful.
I do not wish to carry on any conversation with you until you have cooled down. Is it necessary for you to carry yourself this way? :?
Well, UAS imho is a good indicator to determine a school's performance. I am sure the others will agree with me. (if not, voice out now). The number of perfect scorers? The number of distinctions? I do not have these data. Moreover, these data are not available in this forum. Thus, it is not used by me. To compare and provide an analysis on it, I simply use UAS which was assumed as 81.9, 80+ and 81 (AC,TJ,NY) respectively. - Giving you the benefit of doubts! I am uncertain of the first 2 values.
\"You cannot simply based on UAP alone to rank your precious nyjc above others. Morever their differences are little. We are talking about UAP 80+ to 81. Why do you see it as a mountain from a molehill that I am misleading? Aren't 80+ to 81 similar?\"
This is the funniest joke in the century if not, the millennium.
1.) Precious - there you go again, thinking that I side NY... Let's get this clear 25HMOM, I am fair in judgement. I don't undermine any JCs in Singapore. With your current attitude, I feel you shouldn't belong here to make remarks that would possibly cause more misinterpretations and misunderstanding. Let alone, anger and hatred against you. All that I post is based on facts that can be substantiated, analysis that Is logical and etc.
2.) Define little. 1 to 2 is little? Why bother counting in decimals then? I am sure that the diff between RI and HCIs' UAS is 0.2. You may want to think before you type. It is not making a mountain out of a molehill...80+ to 81 is similar? You may not think that it is significant. This Is the shortfall of your side. Let me tell you that it is indeed significant enough to differentiate the academic standards of the colleges, especially when the UAS is above 80. Well, let me give you an analogy. It is harder to score 95 from 94 marks in an exam as compared to scoring 75 from 74. It requires more effort. Hence, every decimal in UAS counts. Don't ever look down on it!
\"If you have no interest in nyjc, you wouldn't have gone berserk like you did. But yet you do not have the guts to admit.\"
Berserk? Do you even know the meaning of it before you post? Have you give it a second thought? No? That's precisely why the things you post are often opinions and not facts that can be substantiated. Groundless accusations are taboo, but they are often seen spouting from you. This is not the time for you to launch personal attacks on me just because you can't justify for your actions.
I have interest in ALL JCs, not just NY. Seeing how hard you try to defend yourself really pains me. I shall limit my words of pointed glasses, to prevent you from being in gashes.
OK, I do agree with you that TJC and maybe ACJC are more established in terms of results in the recent past. I don't deny these perception. What I can tell is that TJ is dwindling. Being established and being current makes a lot of difference. A JC life is approx. 2 years. When choosing a JC, you look at the PRESENT, not the PAST. It is what the college can provide you for the short and hectic 2 years. And to reason out, NYJC's glory and achievement are not something that came so sudden! (5 years back). It has witnessed many batches, each with improvement of quality and results, being successful. NY is established in a sense too. The COP is below 10 for science since 2011's JAE. Before that, it hovered around 10 to 11 (about the same as 2016's MJC and CJC).
NY has seen gradual improvement in L1R5 score (6 (Science) in 2016's JAE). Why the drop? It must be the proven and credible records that NY has produced over the years. Scorers of AT LEAST a minimum 8 RAW L1r5 score are believed to be rational and to have enough sense to do their due diligence and homework before deciding on a JC. They chose NY out of the 19JCs (not including SJI and ACS(I)) because they trust NY. They believe in NY. They know their potential in NY. I would wish to continue further but time does not permit.
Are you the one who has not cooled down? You seem to be troubled after reading my post? There's no need for you to jeopardise such a situation. Is it necessary for you to carry yourself this way? -
I would like to express my deep concerns regarding my previous posts. I used caps to emphasise words which is easier for me to put my points across. What I post, contains facts. I do not lie, cheat or intentionally hurt anyone here. I believe those who read my posts will understand the essence of it. I can simply ignore this thread and sit on the fence. But, I chose to type out posts to correct any misunderstandings and resolve possible grudges on other JCs (in this case NY). This is time consuming and mentally draining as well. I have thus far put every effort into what I post.
I am not a fan of any JCs. Neither do I hate any JCs. I am fair and being objective.
I put my points across in a way I feel it’s best. I hope all forummers who read my posts will be further enlightened.
Oh yes, I edit my posts a couple of times. Not because of the change in content, but the style of writing and occasional spelling mistakes. I would like all forummers to have an enjoyable time reading them, instead of guessing the words. -
I would like to express my deep concerns regarding my previous posts. I used caps to emphasise words which is easier for me to put my points across. What I post, contains facts. I do not lie, cheat or intentionally hurt anyone here. I believe those who read my posts will understand the essence of it. I can simply ignore this thread and sit on the fence. But, I chose to type out posts to correct any misunderstandings and resolve possible grudges on other JCs (in this case NY). This is time consuming and mentally draining as well. I have thus far put every effort into what I post.
I am not a fan of any JCs. Neither do I hate any JCs. I am fair and being objective.
I put my points across in a way I feel it’s best. I hope all forummers who read my posts will be further enlightened.
Oh yes, I edit my posts a couple of times. Not because of the change in content, but the style of writing and occasional spelling mistakes. I would like all forummers to have an enjoyable time reading them, instead of guessing the words.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login