Networking Group - JCs General
-
repeated post
-
repeated post
-
rains:
So true.
Incidentally, I was talking to an ex-IPJC lecturer/tutor and I asked her the question:
Who are usually the ones at the bottom of the cohort at A levels in terms of results ie. the IP or JAE students?
Surprisingly, she said it's the IP students. Her reason: IP students go in via PSLE results and along the way, for some reason, they may not be suitable for the school, especially at JC level, be it culture, curriculum or other things I have no idea about.
The JAE students enter the IPJC using their O levels results which require them to get 2 or 3 points for entry. They are the cream of the crop, so naturally, they tend to do well at A levels as well.
She also mentioned that at the beginning stage of JC1, JAE students tend to do better as they are more exam-smart, but after the transition period, there is no difference in the performance between the IP and JAE students generally.
I am no expert in the topic. Just happened to chance upon this post and thought I could share what was shared with me.
I have personally come across an ex-GEP student from a top primary school, DSA-ed into top a IP school, scored 26x for PSLE and yet could not qualify for local U after A levels. According to a reliable expert, this student's H2 grades were amongst the bottom 15% of the cohort. Studying overseas for a degree now.
It could be a rare exception but it does happen.
-
It’s tempting to over-generalise the IP population and the JAE population. They are all individuals and some do better than others. One thing the schools do point out though is that for students who don’t do well, it is more than likely to do with other circumstances, such as emotional issues, or problems at home or elsewhere etc leading to them not being able to perform to the best of their ability in the A levels.
Each student is unique and a statistic is just that, a statistic. So what if the stats say that 60% of that JC’s population scores 4As and above. My kid could just be that other 40%. -
I don’t think its surprising that some IP students may not do well at A levels. After all, it’s a whole 6 yrs and many changes between PSLE and A levels!
-
rains:
Psst rains.. You forgot to ask your friend who are usually the ones at the Top of the cohort at A levels in terms of results. The answer might well be, the IP students too.. :evil:
Incidentally, I was talking to an ex-IPJC lecturer/tutor and I asked her the question:zbear:
With all the discussions about IP JCs/MI, IP students vs JAE students make me wonder
- how do the non IP JCs fare in their A level results?
- Will JAE students be better off in non IP JCs?
- Can JAE students perform equally well as IP students in IP JCs?
:?
Who are usually the ones at the bottom of the cohort at A levels in terms of results ie. the IP or JAE students?
Surprisingly, she said it's the IP students. Her reason: IP students go in via PSLE results and along the way, for some reason, they may not be suitable for the school, especially at JC level, be it culture, curriculum or other things I have no idea about.
The JAE students enter the IPJC using their O levels results which require them to get 2 or 3 points for entry. They are the cream of the crop, so naturally, they tend to do well at A levels as well.
She also mentioned that at the beginning stage of JC1, JAE students tend to do better as they are more exam-smart, but after the transition period, there is no difference in the performance between the IP and JAE students generally.
I am no expert in the topic. Just happened to chance upon this post and thought I could share what was shared with me. -
Psst iFirefly, isn’t it somewhat expected that the ones at the top of the cohort at A levels be those students in IP since they are supposedly the cream of the crop during their PSLE and hence got into IP? Hence, it’s not a surprise if they are the top of the cohort in A levels. What would be more surprising if they are at the bottom of the cohort since IP students are revered to be able to do more and do better…
-
iFirefly:
I had assumed that the ones at the top would definitely be the IP students, but the impression the ex-JC tutor gave me was that there was no distinct difference between the top IP and JAE performers. In fact, I know of another current IPJC lecturer/tutor who feels that the standard of IPJCs is not so good anymore bcos of IP students.
Psst rains.. You forgot to ask your friend who are usually the ones at the Top of the cohort at A levels in terms of results. The answer might well be, the IP students too.. :evil:
Both of them feel that PSLE results are not a good indicator of whether the children would perform well at A levels while O levels results seem to be a more accurate or reliable indicator.
Quite surprising to me actually, bcos I always thought that O levels should be a piece of cake for those who had done exceptionally well at PSLE and so they deserve to bypass the O levels track but it seems perhaps O levels is a better yardstick to decide who should get a seat in those JCs. -
rains:
Err...sorry..not wanting a debate but the statement dont quite make sense...if IPJC is not so good anymore bcos of IP students then I dont understand why RI/HCI with majority of their students from IP are way ahead of other JCs in thier A level performance...dont tell me its stellar performance is bcos of JAE students?
In fact, I know of another current IPJC lecturer/tutor who feels that the standard of IPJCs is not so good anymore bcos of IP students.iFirefly:
Psst rains.. You forgot to ask your friend who are usually the ones at the Top of the cohort at A levels in terms of results. The answer might well be, the IP students too.. :evil:
To me...for those JAE students that can gain admission to for example RI/HCI is of the same standard as IP students and their PSLE point are probably not far from RI/HCI cutoff points too or some are simply late boomers. Not all IP students are brilliant and perform as expected of them.
The whole system must be something wrong if the top 10% of the whole cohort that went to IP is not performing as good as the JAE students and affecting the standard of the IPJC. If that is true I doubt the gov will set up another IPJC like Eunoia and increase the number of school offering IP. -
UBKmom:
Err...sorry..not wanting a debate but the statement dont quite make sense...if IPJC is not so good anymore bcos of IP students then I dont understand why RI/HCI with majority of their students from IP are way ahead of other JCs in thier A level performance...dont tell me its stellar performance is bcos of JAE students?
In fact, I know of another current IPJC lecturer/tutor who feels that the standard of IPJCs is not so good anymore bcos of IP students.rains:
[quote=\"iFirefly\"]
Psst rains.. You forgot to ask your friend who are usually the ones at the Top of the cohort at A levels in terms of results. The answer might well be, the IP students too.. :evil:
To me...for those JAE students that can gain admission to for example RI/HCI is of the same standard as IP students and their PSLE point are probably not far from RI/HCI cutoff points too or some are simply late boomers. Not all IP students are brilliant and perform as expected of them.
The whole system must be something wrong if the top 10% of the whole cohort that went to IP is not performing as good as the JAE students and affecting the standard of the IPJC. If that is true I doubt the gov will set up another IPJC like Eunoia and increase the number of school offering IP.[/quote]I think the question needs to be put into context.
My actual question was:
Compared to (that particular) IPJC in the past, is it better now (in terms of results) since the majority of the students are from its affiliated IP secondary school?
She was comparing the current JC with itself prior to having IP. I saw it fitting to ask the question as she has been teaching in the same JC even before IP was introduced and would give a comparatively objective opinion.
Note that we were only discussing the academic facet of education and nothing else.
I am sure compared to the other JCs, these IPJCs are definitely stellar, just that perhaps they are not as 'good' as they used to be in terms of academic results (and how the lecturers view the results may be different from how outsiders view them), but I see it as an educational evolution that is necessary to include holistic development. We used to be totally focused on the academics but now we are not so, compared to many years ago.
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