* Eunoia JC (EJC)
-
thsheng99:
Unfortunately, you have not proven anything except by showing your ignorance in statistics. All students have to take English at \"O\"s . Do all students have to take Physics ? We do know that only a subset of students take physics.mindays:
Unfortunately, I am about to prove you wrong. The national distinction rate of English hovers around 20-30% each year while the national distinction rate of A Math and Physics are about 40% (may even hit 45%), almost DOUBLE! So you are misleading the others that English is easier than A Math/Physics.
If you still do not understand what I am saying, let me give you a simple example even a P5 kid will understand if he has learnt about percentages.
100 students took English, 30% distinction rate is 30 students.
60 students took Physics, 40% distinction rate is 24 students.
You are trying to mislead others by citing percentages instead of absolute numbers. In the example above, your percentages of physics distinction rate may be higher than the English, but because the number of students taking physics is smaller, the absolute number of students getting distinction for English is higher.
Please don't try to mislead here as you tried to mislead in the NYJC thread.
:laugh:
One does not simply use absolute numbers for such comparisons between subjects. Now I know what a P5 standard is like. :laugh: You are saying that getting A1 for English is easier than getting A1 for Physics and A Math. Of course, percentages of distinction rates will be more apt in expressing the probability of a student getting a distinction, which translates into the difficulty in obtaining the distinction. I wonder who is misleading who. -
mindays:
Unfortunately, you have not proven anything except by showing your ignorance in statistics. All students have to take English at \"O\"s . Do all students have to take Physics ? We do know that only a subset of students take physics.thsheng99:
[quote=\"mindays\"]
Unfortunately, I am about to prove you wrong. The national distinction rate of English hovers around 20-30% each year while the national distinction rate of A Math and Physics are about 40% (may even hit 45%), almost DOUBLE! So you are misleading the others that English is easier than A Math/Physics.
If you still do not understand what I am saying, let me give you a simple example even a P5 kid will understand if he has learnt about percentages.
100 students took English, 30% distinction rate is 30 students.
60 students took Physics, 40% distinction rate is 24 students.
You are trying to mislead others by citing percentages instead of absolute numbers. In the example above, your percentages of physics distinction rate may be higher than the English, but because the number of students taking physics is smaller, the absolute number of students getting distinction for English is higher.
Please don't try to mislead here as you tried to mislead in the NYJC thread. :laugh:
One does not simply use absolute numbers for such comparisons between subjects. Now I know what a P5 standard is like. :laugh: You are saying that getting A1 for English is easier than getting A1 for Physics and A Math. Of course, percentages of distinction rates will be more apt in expressing the probability of a student getting a distinction, which translates into the difficulty in obtaining the distinction. I wonder who is misleading who.[/quote]Well, if you still cannot understand a simple P5 analogy and still insist that you are right, then I cannot bring it simpler to explain to you :rotflmao: It's just like how EthanEthan refuted your \"80 pointer student find it harder to get that extra mark than 60 pointer student\" in the NYJC thread.
While percentages may be a good measure, it is purely one dimensional to just draw conclusions based on it alone ( which you are doing). A good analytical person or accountant would have consider other factors. For example, in this case the student base is vastly different, which I have shown in P5 analogy which unfortunately you are unable to comprehend.
.Another factor - the English exam taker would be a general cohort, consisting of both good and bad students in English since English is mandatory for all. The Physics cohort would have comprise of students who have demonstrated good ability in Physics, hence they chose or were allocated this subject in Sec 3/4. Won't you think the students in the Physics group will be better equipped to get better result than the motley gang you have in English? But does that conclusively prove that English is more difficult than Physics ?
Of course, I don't think you would have thought so deeply *sigh* . Well, nothing new...but the same old obstinance :rotflmao: -
mindays:
Huh....you just conclude that Physics is easier than English just based on this ?
Unfortunately, I am about to prove you wrong. The national distinction rate of English hovers around 20-30% each year while the national distinction rate of A Math and Physics are about 40% (may even hit 45%), almost DOUBLE! So you are misleading the others that English is easier than A Math/Physics. You really just think that superficially huh? :rotflmao:
Let me give you a scenario, if you boss gave you a 20% pay increment but gave your colleague only a 10% increment, does it conclusively prove that you are performing much better than your colleague.?
What if you realise that your pay is only $1000 and your colleagues is $3000 before the increment, would that change your perspective that you are a better performer? In absolute term, your pay increment was only $200 where else your colleague's was $300 :evil:
Think through this and if you cannot understand this easy scenario, let me know and I will attempt to explain it at a even simpler level. -
thsheng99:
Well, if you still cannot understand a simple P5 analogy and still insist that you are right, then I cannot bring it simpler to explain to you :rotflmao: It's just like how EthanEthan refuted your \"80 pointer student find it harder to get that extra mark than 60 pointer student\" in the NYJC thread.mindays:
[quote=\"thsheng99\"]
Unfortunately, you have not proven anything except by showing your ignorance in statistics. All students have to take English at \"O\"s . Do all students have to take Physics ? We do know that only a subset of students take physics.
If you still do not understand what I am saying, let me give you a simple example even a P5 kid will understand if he has learnt about percentages.
100 students took English, 30% distinction rate is 30 students.
60 students took Physics, 40% distinction rate is 24 students.
You are trying to mislead others by citing percentages instead of absolute numbers. In the example above, your percentages of physics distinction rate may be higher than the English, but because the number of students taking physics is smaller, the absolute number of students getting distinction for English is higher.
Please don't try to mislead here as you tried to mislead in the NYJC thread. :laugh:
One does not simply use absolute numbers for such comparisons between subjects. Now I know what a P5 standard is like. :laugh: You are saying that getting A1 for English is easier than getting A1 for Physics and A Math. Of course, percentages of distinction rates will be more apt in expressing the probability of a student getting a distinction, which translates into the difficulty in obtaining the distinction. I wonder who is misleading who.
While percentages may be a good measure, it is purely one dimensional to just draw conclusions based on it alone ( which you are doing). A good analytical person or accountant would have consider other factors. For example, in this case the student base is vastly different, which I have shown in P5 analogy which unfortunately you are unable to comprehend.
.Another factor - the English exam taker would be a general cohort, consisting of both good and bad students in English since English is mandatory for all. The Physics cohort would have comprise of students who have demonstrated good ability in Physics, hence they chose or were allocated this subject in Sec 3/4. Won't you think the students in the Physics group will be better equipped to get better result than the motley gang you have in English? But does that conclusively prove that English is more difficult than Physics ?
Of course, I don't think you would have thought so deeply *sigh* . Well, nothing new...but the same old obstinance :rotflmao:[/quote]Allow me to address whatever your concerns may be.
Now, what I am saying is that getting a distinction for English is a lot more harder than getting a distinction for A Math and Physics. Your statement was \"I too find English easy compare to Add Maths or Physics\", in the context of EthanEthan's point of getting A1 for English is not difficult. This gives all the readers here a false impression that getting a distinction for English is easier than Physics/A Maths.
This brings me to my substantiate that the national distinction rates of A Math/Physics are almost twice of English. You then said that the candidates that take English are greater than A Math/Physics. But this is not the main issue because even science subject that most students take in substitute of Physics (Science(Phy/Chem)) has an average distinction rate of 35%. So, the distinction rates for English and Physics/A Math are approx. 20 and 40 respectively, which brings me to a point that it is easier to score a distinction in Physics/A Math than English.
Fine, if you want to rebut using cohort strength, let me give you another key evidence. Since you said that English is easier than A Math, I assume that English is way more easier than E Math (Elementary vs Advanced, surely the elementary will test more fundamental math concepts). Using your point of having a same cohort strength, the candidates taking E Math and English are approx. the same. HOWEVER, the distinction rates for E Math is also in the 40s, while English is approx. half the value. What does this show then? (IF English is easier to score a distinction than A Math (in this case I used a more underrated substitute: E Math, the distinction rate for English should outshine E Math.)
IMHO, the difference in cohort base strength is not even a significant factor in the difference of distinction rates across the subjects, and your point of English is easier than A Math/Physics is misleading and DEFINETLY false. Don't try to brainwash the people here to admit that English is easier to get A1 than A Math/Physics. -
EthanEthan:
Totally :offtopic: and a bad scenario to illustrate. I don't understand how absolute numbers can be more useful than percentage in determining the ease of obtaining a distinction. I hope your professor (as you have said in NYJC thread and made a ruckus out of 60 and 80 marks) didn't teach you wrongly. :laugh: :evil:
Huh....you just conclude that Physics is easier than English just based on this ?mindays:
Unfortunately, I am about to prove you wrong. The national distinction rate of English hovers around 20-30% each year while the national distinction rate of A Math and Physics are about 40% (may even hit 45%), almost DOUBLE! So you are misleading the others that English is easier than A Math/Physics. You really just think that superficially huh? :rotflmao:
Let me give you a scenario, if you boss gave you a 20% pay increment but gave your colleague only a 10% increment, does it conclusively prove that you are performing much better than your colleague.?
What if you realise that your pay is only $1000 and your colleagues is $3000 before the increment, would that change your perspective that you are a better performer? In absolute term, your pay increment was only $200 where else your colleague's was $300 :evil:
Think through this and if you cannot understand this easy scenario, let me know and I will attempt to explain it at a even simpler level. -
mindays:
LOL...just because you are unable to rebutt the scenario, you declare it off topic ? :rotflmao:
Totally :offtopic: and a bad scenario to illustrate. I don't understand how absolute numbers can be more useful than percentage in determining the ease of obtaining a distinction. I hope your professor (as you have said in NYJC thread and made a ruckus out of 60 and 80 marks) didn't teach you wrongly. :evil:
I hate to disappoint you but the scenario shows exactly how your conclusion was single dimensional and pixelated. Please do not post here anymore, it just exposes your naivety and ignorance
-
mindays:
Firstly, it very misleading of you to have said your have PROVEN that Physics is easier than English. Percentages only tell one side of the story and can never be conclusively be used to prove anything. You are being very irresponsible to make such a statement.
Allow me to address whatever your concerns may be.
Now, what I am saying is that getting a distinction for English is a lot more harder than getting a distinction for A Math and Physics. Your statement was \"I too find English easy compare to Add Maths or Physics\", in the context of EthanEthan's point of getting A1 for English is not difficult. This gives all the readers here a false impression that getting a distinction for English is easier than Physics/A Maths.
This brings me to my substantiate that the national distinction rates of A Math/Physics are almost twice of English. You then said that the candidates that take English are greater than A Math/Physics. But this is not the main issue because even science subject that most students take in substitute of Physics (Science(Phy/Chem)) has an average distinction rate of 35%. So, the distinction rates for English and Physics/A Math are approx. 20 and 40 respectively, which brings me to a point that it is easier to score a distinction in Physics/A Math than English.
Fine, if you want to rebut using cohort strength, let me give you another key evidence. Since you said that English is easier than A Math, I assume that English is way more easier than E Math (Elementary vs Advanced, surely the elementary will test more fundamental math concepts). Using your point of having a same cohort strength, the candidates taking E Math and English are approx. the same. HOWEVER, the distinction rates for E Math is also in the 40s, while English is approx. half the value. What does this show then? (IF English is easier to score a distinction than A Math (in this case I used a more underrated substitute: E Math, the distinction rate for English should outshine E Math.)
IMHO, the difference in cohort base strength is not even a significant factor in the difference of distinction rates across the subjects, and your point of English is easier than A Math/Physics is misleading and DEFINETLY false. Don't try to brainwash the people here to admit that English is easier to get A1 than A Math/Physics.
Mark Twain said that \"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics\". You are trying to use statistics irresponsibly to twist it to suit your \"proof\".
As I have explained (and others too) here, percentages is only a indication You have to consider the homogeneity of cohort, the differences in sample size and any other factors to draw a balanced analysis and conclusion. You are suggesting that if 80% of of people who smoke gets cancer, then it is proven that smoking will lead to cancer Even scientists do not dare to make such an audacious assertion without considering other mitigating factors. And you are only an accountant, not even a scientist or certified statistician.
It will be best as a forummer says, that you leave this forum and do not bring any of your negativity here. -
EthanEthan:
mindays:
Totally :offtopic: and a bad scenario to illustrate. I don't understand how absolute numbers can be more useful than percentage in determining the ease of obtaining a distinction. I hope your professor (as you have said in NYJC thread and made a ruckus out of 60 and 80 marks) didn't teach you wrongly. :evil:
Or does it expose your naivety and ignorance when you said English was easier to get A1 than math and physics and it is easier to improve from a 80 mark than 60 mark You have not even explain your rationale in using absolute numbers than percentage in determining the ease of obtaining a distinction
-
thsheng99:
You have very much considered one person's quote to conclude an argument. You are not producing substantial evidence to debunk the fact that the higher percentage of distinction rates of Math and Physics as compared to English PROVES that it is easier to obtain an A in Physics and Math as compared to English. This is simply because if a greater proportion of students (express as percentage) has the capacity to obtain a distinction, it just means that it is easier to obtain a distinction in Math and Physics than English.
Firstly, it very misleading of you to have said your have PROVEN that Physics is easier than English. Percentages only tell one side of the story and can never be conclusively be used to prove anything. You are being very irresponsible to make such a statement.mindays:
Allow me to address whatever your concerns may be.
Now, what I am saying is that getting a distinction for English is a lot more harder than getting a distinction for A Math and Physics. Your statement was \"I too find English easy compare to Add Maths or Physics\", in the context of EthanEthan's point of getting A1 for English is not difficult. This gives all the readers here a false impression that getting a distinction for English is easier than Physics/A Maths.
This brings me to my substantiate that the national distinction rates of A Math/Physics are almost twice of English. You then said that the candidates that take English are greater than A Math/Physics. But this is not the main issue because even science subject that most students take in substitute of Physics (Science(Phy/Chem)) has an average distinction rate of 35%. So, the distinction rates for English and Physics/A Math are approx. 20 and 40 respectively, which brings me to a point that it is easier to score a distinction in Physics/A Math than English.
Fine, if you want to rebut using cohort strength, let me give you another key evidence. Since you said that English is easier than A Math, I assume that English is way more easier than E Math (Elementary vs Advanced, surely the elementary will test more fundamental math concepts). Using your point of having a same cohort strength, the candidates taking E Math and English are approx. the same. HOWEVER, the distinction rates for E Math is also in the 40s, while English is approx. half the value. What does this show then? (IF English is easier to score a distinction than A Math (in this case I used a more underrated substitute: E Math, the distinction rate for English should outshine E Math.)
IMHO, the difference in cohort base strength is not even a significant factor in the difference of distinction rates across the subjects, and your point of English is easier than A Math/Physics is misleading and DEFINETLY false. Don't try to brainwash the people here to admit that English is easier to get A1 than A Math/Physics.
Mark Twain said that \"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics\". You are trying to use statistics irresponsibly to twist it to suit your \"proof\".
As I have explained (and others too) here, percentages is only a indication You have to consider the homogeneity of cohort, the differences in sample size and any other factors to draw a balanced analysis and conclusion. You are suggesting that if 80% of of people who smoke gets cancer, then it is proven that smoking will lead to cancer Even scientists do not dare to make such an audacious assertion without considering other mitigating factors. And you are only an accountant, not even a scientist or certified statistician.
It will be best as a forummer says, that you leave this forum and do not bring any of your negativity here.
What is even more ridiculous is that you implied that smoking wont lead to cancer. On the contrary, it can accelerate your death! :evil: :evil: :evil: -
mindays:
I have given you the \"salary\" example to remind you to not look at statistics at the surface.
Or does it expose your naivety and ignorance when you said English was easier to get A1 than math and physics and it is easier to improve from a 80 mark than 60 mark You have not even explain your rationale in using absolute numbers than percentage in determining the ease of obtaining a distinction
I am repeating the example below, if you have not got the chance to read it.
Let me give you a scenario, if you boss gave you a 20% pay increment but gave your colleague only a 10% increment, does it conclusively prove that you are performing much better than your colleague.?
What if you realise that your pay is only $1000 and your colleagues is $3000 before the increment, would that change your perspective that you are a better performer? In absolute term, your pay increment was only $200 where else your colleague's was $300 :evil:
On the surface, it seems like you have performed much better than your collegue. But the fact is that your base pay so much lower than your collegue that your boss has to try close the gap by giving you a higher pay increment percentage. So it is really not true that you have performed better than you collegue.
All you have done in this forum is make lots of unsubstantiated \"noise\" without backing your statements with facts.
I hope you understand what is empty vessels make the most noise
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 Login5
Online211.4k
Users34.6k
Topics1.8m
PostsMaths
English
Chinese
Multiple subjects