* Nanyang JC (NYJC)

[mum_sugoku]

mindays:

candyfan:

[quote=\"mindays\"]
Nanyang JC is in fact comparable to IP JCs such as Temasek JC, RVHS and probably Dunman High. I am very sure based on the latest A level results, NYJC definitely wins TJC in terms of academics. NYJC improves annually, if you do realise.

Someone posted 2015 A level results with nyjc having only 31% of pupils obtaining 3H2 distinctions as compared to dhs of 39.5%. How are they comparable, mindays?

Your statement on nyjc 'winning' tjc academically based on latest A level results has no basis as well. It's merely your perception.

I would feel more attached to nyjc if you could stop overrating its achievements and being so competitive.

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.[/quote]Is there a need to drag TJ into your debate just to prove how much superior NY is?

With a son currently doing IP in TJ and my DH an alumnus of TJ, I'm annoyed that you resort to condemn an entirely unrelated JC (TJ), claiming how *shocking*ly bad its PW result as compared with NY's just to justify NY's superiority.

Kindly refrain from doing that, can you?

[mum_sugoku]

stetan:

mindays:

Alright, to me, VJ was quite successful back then in the 80s and 90s, we even beat RJ in the A level results and was crowned as the top JC then. That was because of the strong culture that VJ has in which the seniors had programmes with the juniors. I still remembered the times I had with my seniors, some of them are really successful now and I do stay in contact with them till date. .

I remembered VJC was top JC for only 1 year. Subsequently, it had never been top again. In fact nowadays, its performance has never been comparable or even close to the top 2 JCs RI/HCI.

Can you give some insight into this since you were so confident that the school culture, support e.t.c would ensure that a JC can sustain it's performance?

Just curious, when VJC was top that year, was the VJC principal the woman that came from HCJC, ex vice-principal ?

*OT*
During my time (mid 80s), it was said that when Mrs Lee left HC to head VJ, she brought along with her some excellent senior teachers from HC to VJ. (I was from neither JC and back then, it was my ex-classmates studying in HC who told me the \"rumour\".)

[candyfan]

mindays:

candyfan:

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 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.

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.

Please enlighten me what is the current minimum UAS for a pupil to be ELIGIBLE for a local U course then? 70? 75? Or others? You know it's not possible to know the exact cut-off point of every course in any local U. Only the Indicative Grade Profile (IGP) will be printed for reference each year.

http://www.nus.edu.sg/oam/gradeprofile/sprogramme-igp.html

For e.g., based on above link, Nursing course has the lowest IGP of BCC/C. Do you mean the NYJC graduate' X' with the lowest UAS is eligible to apply for Nursing (but may not be interested)?

http://www.nus.edu.sg/oam/apply/local/interviews/BYA-interviews.html

Based on above requirement, is NYJC so sure this graduate X had the (1) prerequisites to apply for Nursing, (2)will be granted an interview and (3) will pass the interview to safely say she is ELIGIBLE?
Did the NYJC staff assume that its worst performer had obtained BCC/C and hence is deemed as eligible for the local U course with lowest IGP?

My niece's NYJC teacher said that to safely say that one is eligible for local U, the UAS is 75 points. Did graduate X with the lowest UAS in NYJC obtain 75 points? I am sure he/she did not.

Can you give the name of the staff who disclose this 100% eligible to local U to you. I will call him/her personally to verify the claim. I am sure no staff will dare to commit such a figure to anyone.

[candyfan]

In addition to my post above, even the ex-Principal of NYJC would not state the % of graduates eligible for local U as he had to account for his statement published.


https://s24.postimg.org/ujbh123yd/st_jc.png\">

He stated that 'about 9 in 10 of its graduates go on to study in local university'. This is an indication that NYJC has an average of 'around' 90% eligible for local U.

mindays, this is my proof that your claim is NOT credible.

[StillThinking]

the mindset of people here are… scary…

[candyfan]

StillThinking:

the mindset of people here are... scary...

StillThinking, please elaborate your thoughts.

If there are readers here who are trying to exaggerate and provide inaccurate information, we have to speak up and set things right.

[mindays]

candyfan:

In addition to my post above, even the ex-Principal of NYJC would not state the % of graduates eligible for local U as he had to account for his statement published.


https://s24.postimg.org/ujbh123yd/st_jc.png\">

He stated that 'about 9 in 10 of its graduates go on to study in local university'. This is an indication that NYJC has an average of 'around' 90% eligible for local U.

mindays, this is my proof that your claim is NOT credible.

Exactly, I hope you read the article from the press more carefully. The article no doubt stated that about 9 in 10 go on to study in local university, however, it does not mean that 9 out of 10 are ELIGIBLE. As I have stated, some of them may pursue their studies in overseas or probably private institutions. This will therefore be included in the 1 out of 10 that did not go on to study in local U. I am sure RJ or HCI does not have 10 in 10 graduates who proceed on to study in local U, but that doesn't mean that they are not eligible for local U

[mindays]

EthanEthan:

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:

Forgive me for a late reply as I had to rush some reports. Anyway, my conclusion was as simple as you stick to your perspective while I hold on to mine. I have made it very clear that I rest my case and I do not wish to argue with you anymore. Why are you still harping on it, trying to convince me or others despite countless efforts of me trying to put this seemingly trivial matter to rest? Are you confident in your \"theory\"? I think the readers will understand the essence from each post, whether it is by you or me, so there is really no need to argue further.

[mindays]

mum_sugoku:

Is there a need to drag TJ into your debate just to prove how much superior NY is?

With a son currently doing IP in TJ and my DH an alumnus of TJ, I'm annoyed that you resort to condemn an entirely unrelated JC (TJ), claiming how *shocking*ly bad its PW result as compared with NY's just to justify NY's superiority.

Kindly refrain from doing that, can you?

Results itself harness insensitivity. I was stating facts as they were. I am not trying to initiate a superiority of any JC, please don't get me wrong. My intention was to share what I have gathered from their open houses, playing a part in contribution, but it seems like I have to refrain from sharing results, TBH it is a very sensitive topic to even talk about and I fully agree with you

[mindays]

EthanEthan:

mindays:

I hope your niece did not lie to you, because 100% were eligible to a local U (good enough to get a course). .

What do you mean by \"eligible\"? if get grade D ( I presume that is a pass grade) for all subjects, considered eligible ?

A pass grade by national standards is an E grade. I shall clarify it for you:

ELIGIBILTY means:
At least two H2 passes and attempted GP or KI in the same sitting (for NTU and NUS) 
or
3 H2 passes in content subjects, 1 H1 pass in content subjects, Project Work and GP/KI in the same sitting(for SMU and SUTD)
Meet one of the following Mother Tongue Language (MTL) requirement:
A minimum of ‘S’ grade in H1 MTL or General Studies in Chinese or H2 Mother Tongue Language & Literature (MTLL) taken at ‘A’ level
Pass in MTL ‘B’ syllabus taken at ‘A’ level
A minimum of D7 in Higher MTL taken at ‘O’ level