* Nanyang JC (NYJC)
-
candyfan:
I did say that if you doubt what I say, call up the respective colleges, it is foolish of you to not get your facts right. Please prove me wrong, otherwise, stop writing a dubious reply, you are being irresponsible. I took the effort to go down the colleges, but what you did was nothing but a keyboard action. If you insist, prove me wrong then, I dare to challenge you, if not take back your words and apologise for that hurting accusations.
If NY's eligibility of local university admission (for 2015?) was indeed 100%, this stellar result should be published here but it wasn't:mindays:
To reiterate myself again, I went to the open houses of both JCs, and I come to know that TJ's PW results of 2015 is only about 20+% A. It was shocking! You can ask other forumners to prove. NY has about twice of TJ's distinction rates for PW.
TJ's eligibility of local university admission is about 96%. NY's eligibility of local university admission is 100%.
Take note, I mean ELIGIBILITY, I don't mean 96 or 100% respectively proceeded with local U, because some of them may proceed on to overseas university. I got these data from the 2017 open house. If you doubt, you can always ask the colleges and prove me wrong. I take the effort to find out and the last thing I would want to receive is dubious reply to me. It is simply hurting.
I am not trying to sell NY because I don't see any benefits for it. I am speaking up for NY because I see forumners trying to downplay NYJC, using EJC and even perceptions. Why don't you say something about them? Or birds of the same feather flock together?
IF I do not exist, I wonder how NY is wrongly addressed by these forumners.
http://nanyangjc.moe.edu.sg/prospective-nyjcians/admission-details/direct-schools-admission-dsa
(2016 DSA poster)
This prove that your info is not credible. If you do not exist, the forummers here would be fed with accurate info to make rational decision.
P/S: It will be foolish for anyone to believe that TJC 2015 PW distinction rate was only 20%.
You are very irresponsible & misleading mindays! -
EthanEthan:
I did not say \"it takes more effort for the 60 mark student than the 80 mark student \"
I thought my question is very straightforward. Nevertheless, let me explain more again.mindays:
I am confused by what you say because you seem to include so many things in your post.
Firstly, you said that I was wrong to say that the effort needed to get 90 marks from 80 marks is different from the effort needed to get 80 marks from 70 marks. I explained myself and you relentlessly held on to your concept, I rest my case.
Secondly, you dug further to even say that \"the 80 marks student will need \"less effort\" to\" sort of improve.
Thirdly, you went on to ask the same repeated qn: \"Are you saying it would be tougher for the 80mark still to get the additional MCQ question correct than the 60 mark student \", which I have stated my stand countless times.
What exactly are you driving at?
1. You claim that a 60 mark student will find it easier to gain the additional one more mark than the 80 mark student.
2. To claim that extra one more mark, you just need to answer an additional MCQ question correctly
3. Answering the MCQ question correctly, require the same effort, whether you are a 60 mark or 80 mark student.(Please note my emphasis in bold)
Question to you
So why did you say it takes more effort for the 60 mark student than the 80 mark student ?
I hope this is clear enough.
I said it takes more effort for the 80 mark student than the 60 mark student.
What more do you want when I say I rest my case, its tiring to explain to people like you.
P.S. PSLE is not as simple as your so called \"MCQs\" -
mindays:
Yes. my typo. You said it takes more effort for the 80mark student.
I did not say \"it takes more effort for the 60 mark student than the 80 mark student \"
I said it takes more effort for the 80 mark student than the 60 mark student.
What more do you want when I say I rest my case, its tiring to explain to people like you.
P.S. PSLE is not as simple as your so called \"MCQs\"
But you have clearly not explain why as it takes more effort for the 80mark student to gain the next additional mark I have cited this many times but you deliberately avoided answering it directly.
I am just citing MCQ as a analogy. It can be any type of question.
So, please explain clearly as it is you who brought this up based on your \"statistic knowledge:. Don't try to hide behind phrases such as \"I rest my case\", \"tiring to explain to people like you\" -
EthanEthan:
Not sure if I make sense, but perhaps the assumption is that the final 10-20 marks are higher-order questions that would be harder for the general student population to grasp/answer, hence the idea that it takes more effort for the 80-mark student to gain the additional mark (vs the next 10 marks up from say 70 marks, which are relatively more \"attainable\" by students, thus pushing the 70-mark pupil to the 70+ mark bracket after which they might be stumped by the higher order questions which are harder to score).
Yes. my typo. You said it takes more effort for the 80mark student.mindays:
I did not say \"it takes more effort for the 60 mark student than the 80 mark student \"
I said it takes more effort for the 80 mark student than the 60 mark student.
What more do you want when I say I rest my case, its tiring to explain to people like you.
P.S. PSLE is not as simple as your so called \"MCQs\"
But you have clearly not explain why as it takes more effort for the 80mark student to gain the next additional mark I have cited this many times but you deliberately avoided answering it directly.
I am just citing MCQ as a analogy. It can be any type of question.
So, please explain clearly as it is you who brought this up based on your \"statistic knowledge:. Don't try to hide behind phrases such as \"I rest my case\", \"tiring to explain to people like you\"
That being said, with the kind of basic expectation of students and training that kids get nowadays, the higher-order questions do not remain \"unattainable\" for long, I feel. Before you know it, that 80-mark barrier can be broken with minimal effort by a big chunk of students, because these questions become the new norm. So, even higher-order questions are set.
Anyways, sorry, I'm definitely OT... -
mindays:
I did say that if you doubt what I say, call up the respective colleges, it is foolish of you to not get your facts right. Please prove me wrong, otherwise, stop writing a dubious reply, you are being irresponsible. I took the effort to go down the colleges, but what you did was nothing but a keyboard action. If you insist, prove me wrong then, I dare to challenge you, if not take back your words and apologise for that hurting accusations.[/quote]My niece from the class of 2015 had confirmed that there were jc mates who did not make it to the local (i.e.government) university. This is enough to prove you wrong.
If NY's eligibility of local university admission (for 2015?) was indeed 100%, this stellar result should be published here but it wasn't:candyfan:
[quote=\"mindays\"]
To reiterate myself again, I went to the open houses of both JCs, and I come to know that TJ's PW results of 2015 is only about 20+% A. It was shocking! You can ask other forumners to prove. NY has about twice of TJ's distinction rates for PW.
TJ's eligibility of local university admission is about 96%. NY's eligibility of local university admission is 100%.
Take note, I mean ELIGIBILITY, I don't mean 96 or 100% respectively proceeded with local U, because some of them may proceed on to overseas university. I got these data from the 2017 open house. If you doubt, you can always ask the colleges and prove me wrong. I take the effort to find out and the last thing I would want to receive is dubious reply to me. It is simply hurting.
I am not trying to sell NY because I don't see any benefits for it. I am speaking up for NY because I see forumners trying to downplay NYJC, using EJC and even perceptions. Why don't you say something about them? Or birds of the same feather flock together?
IF I do not exist, I wonder how NY is wrongly addressed by these forumners.
http://nanyangjc.moe.edu.sg/prospective-nyjcians/admission-details/direct-schools-admission-dsa
(2016 DSA poster)
This prove that your info is not credible. If you do not exist, the forummers here would be fed with accurate info to make rational decision.
P/S: It will be foolish for anyone to believe that TJC 2015 PW distinction rate was only 20%.
You are very irresponsible & misleading mindays!
The Open House are closed now so you can pluck any figures to your advantage.
In your earlier message, you mentioned that the % of PW distinctions were always at 60+%. Now you admitted that it was about 40% in your eagerness to bring down TJC.
-
candyfan:
I hope your niece did not lie to you, because 100% were eligible to a local U (good enough to get a course). I emphasised heavily on the word ELIGIBILITY, your niece friends' may not have gotten into their course choice, as a result, they \"didn't make it to the local university\", but they surely are able to secure a place in the U.
My niece from the class of 2015 had confirmed that there were jc mates who did not make it to the local (i.e.government) university. This is enough to prove you wrong.
The Open House are closed now so you can pluck any figures to your advantage.
In your earlier message, you mentioned that the % of PW distinctions were always at 60+%. Now you admitted that it was about 40% in your eagerness to bring down TJC.
I said, for the past few years, NYJC had a consistent 60+% distinction rates for PW, I did not make a statement saying that it is 2016's results. In fact I said that I didn't have the exact figures with me. Can you check before uttering such accusations. You are incredible to even argue about credibility (just look at your reputation vs mine, even though I created this account 3 years later than you, it simply shows your credibility). Besides, KTKS did mention that the PW results may be 40+%, which indeed was what I confirmed during the 2017 open house. -
ā¦
-
mindays:
I am not comparing. I am just requesting you to give us some insight why you think VJC did not regain the #1 position after Mrs Lee left, despite haing good school culture, support and good seniors e.t.c
You have to understand that RI and HCI take in top students since secondary 1, unlike VJ who accepts JC1s (before the IP system came in). It is meaningless and groundless to compare because if both colleges were to start on different take off point, the exact reasons cannot be scrutinised. Besides, I do not wish to discuss things that are unrelated to NYJC anymore, wasn't that what I have mentioned before? You are depriving people with genuine interest to this thread.
Any thoughts ? -
MotherHen:
Not sure if I make sense, but perhaps the assumption is that the final 10-20 marks are higher-order questions that would be harder for the general student population to grasp/answer, hence the idea that it takes more effort for the 80-mark student to gain the additional mark (vs the next 10 marks up from say 70 marks, which are relatively more \"attainable\" by students, thus pushing the 70-mark pupil to the 70+ mark bracket after which they might be stumped by the higher order questions which are harder to score).
That being said, with the kind of basic expectation of students and training that kids get nowadays, the higher-order questions do not remain \"unattainable\" for long, I feel. Before you know it, that 80-mark barrier can be broken with minimal effort by a big chunk of students, because these questions become the new norm. So, even higher-order questions are set.
Anyways, sorry, I'm definitely OT...
Thank you for trying to explain what Mindays is trying to avoid explaining. However, I do have a different perspective. Let's break down the PSLE by subjects
1 English/Chinese - we don't really have higher order questions here as it is really language proficiency they are testing. And I think this really is to the advantage of the 80 mark student rather than the 60 marks students.
2. Maths - this is the only subject that historically have the \"killer\" questions . But for many years now, the consensus is that Maths is becoming more manageable and such killer questions have kind of loss their sting. In fact, I would think that carelessness in answering the questions are now a more critical factor in losing or gaining the extra marks
3 Science - Science has become more application related, so if you don't know your concepts well, you would not be able to apply. So again, I would think the 80 mark student would stand a better chance of gaining marks than the 60 marks students.
Thus it is rather irresponsible of Mindays to claim with a broad brush that the 60mark student will take less effort to gain that extra mark than the 80mark student. And I do not see any \"statistical basis\" that he said he based his claim on. I can see why he is avoiding answering it as he really have no \"statistical evidence\" to back up his claim.
Still waiting for him to revert.....if he ever. :evil: -
mindays:
What do you mean by \"eligible\"? if get grade D ( I presume that is a pass grade) for all subjects, considered eligible ?
I hope your niece did not lie to you, because 100% were eligible to a local U (good enough to get a course). .
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 š
Register Login