* Eunoia JC (EJC)

[thsheng99]

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.

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.

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.

[mindays]

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

[mindays]

thsheng99:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

[EthanEthan]

mindays:

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 have given you the \"salary\" example to remind you to not look at statistics at the surface.

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

[thsheng99]

mindays:

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.

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:

I have already shown you many examples on why your premise is incorrect. You are too simple minded to think that a single factor can explain the entire point, without considering other factors that may cause an impact as well.

The point of bringing up the cancer example is to show you clearly how you are arguing your case...which in your own words, may lead to your \"death\" if you continue with this single minded thinking.

Let me expand on the cancer example so that it is easy enough for you to comprehend

There is a mortality rate of 50% for cancer for people living in Bishan and a mortality rate of 70% living in Yishun. To you, it would mean it is easier to get cancer staying in Yishun than in Bishan ?

What it is made known to you that the 80% sample population for the study in Yishun are smokers where-else only 30% in Bishan are smokers. Do you still think it is easier to get cancer staying in Yishun ?

Please do not continue to mislead anybody in this thread that you have \"proved\" something. That is furthest from the truth and as Mark Twain says, a \"damned lie\"

[Careermum]

Under \"Passion Pursuit Independent\" which is one of the flagship programmes for the IP students, there is a work attachment in Year 4.


For those whose children are already in J1, can you all share what kind of work attachments your DC and their schoolmates have been to?

Thanks

[mindays]

thsheng99:

mindays:

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.

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:

I have already shown you many examples on why your premise is incorrect. You are too simple minded to think that a single factor can explain the entire point, without considering other factors that may cause an impact as well.

The point of bringing up the cancer example is to show you clearly how you are arguing your case...which in your own words, may lead to your \"death\" if you continue with this single minded thinking.

Let me expand on the cancer example so that it is easy enough for you to comprehend

There is a mortality rate of 50% for cancer for people living in Bishan and a mortality rate of 70% living in Yishun. To you, it would mean it is easier to get cancer staying in Yishun than in Bishan ?

What it is made known to you that the 80% sample population for the study in Yishun are smokers where-else only 30% in Bishan are smokers. Do you still think it is easier to get cancer staying in Yishun ?

Please do not continue to mislead anybody in this thread that you have \"proved\" something. That is furthest from the truth and as Mark Twain says, a \"damned lie\"

You are indeed smoking your way through. A fact is a fact in which a greater percentage of students obtain distinction for Physics/Math than English just simply means it is easier to obtain an A for the former. The probability translates into the ease of getting a distinction. Stop misleading others by giving erroneous and ridiculous examples to spread your ideology. It makes no sense and no link to the fact that smoking still cause cancer, be it that you smoke in Bishan or Yishun. Really wonder what you are thinking up in your head :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

[mindays]

EthanEthan:

mindays:

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 have given you the \"salary\" example to remind you to not look at statistics at the surface.

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

So what are you trying to say? Do you prefer a simple increment or a compound increment? Which gives you more in the long run? An increase of wage 20% yearly will definitely outbeat the increment of 10% yearly. So in another sense, using percentage to determine is more realistic than absolute figures. Do you get it? If I tell you that XJC has 3 students scoring 8 distinctions but have a cohort size of 1200 while YJC has 2 students scoring 8 distinctions with a cohort size of 600, which JC do you think is better? With the point your are making, you are saying that XJC is better because it produces more students scoring 8 distinctions than YJC (absolute figure). But in reality, YJC is stronger than XJC because the percentage of students scoring 8 distinctions is higher than XJC. So, don't mislead others with your ill thinking and self-proclaimed taught by professors. To me, it is a blatant lie :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

[thsheng99]

mindays:

thsheng99:

I have already shown you many examples on why your premise is incorrect. You are too simple minded to think that a single factor can explain the entire point, without considering other factors that may cause an impact as well.

The point of bringing up the cancer example is to show you clearly how you are arguing your case...which in your own words, may lead to your \"death\" if you continue with this single minded thinking.

Let me expand on the cancer example so that it is easy enough for you to comprehend

There is a mortality rate of 50% for cancer for people living in Bishan and a mortality rate of 70% living in Yishun. To you, it would mean it is easier to get cancer staying in Yishun than in Bishan ?

What it is made known to you that the 80% sample population for the study in Yishun are smokers where-else only 30% in Bishan are smokers. Do you still think it is easier to get cancer staying in Yishun ?

Please do not continue to mislead anybody in this thread that you have \"proved\" something. That is furthest from the truth and as Mark Twain says, a \"damned lie\"

You are indeed smoking your way through. A fact is a fact in which a greater percentage of students obtain distinction for Physics/Math than English just simply means it is easier to obtain an A for the former. The probability translates into the ease of getting a distinction. Stop misleading others by giving erroneous and ridiculous examples to spread your ideology. It makes no sense and no link to the fact that smoking still cause cancer, be it that you smoke in Bishan or Yishun. Really wonder what you are thinking up in your head :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

I am really surprised that you can resort to a single piece of percentage to \"prove\" (your own words) a certain fact. Even MOE do not dare to make such a statement.

If you have nothing else more to contribute than repeating your misguided fallacies here, please leave this forum and do not flood this thread with your frivolous comments.

[thsheng99]

mindays:

thsheng99:

I have already shown you many examples on why your premise is incorrect. You are too simple minded to think that a single factor can explain the entire point, without considering other factors that may cause an impact as well.

The point of bringing up the cancer example is to show you clearly how you are arguing your case...which in your own words, may lead to your \"death\" if you continue with this single minded thinking.

Let me expand on the cancer example so that it is easy enough for you to comprehend

There is a mortality rate of 50% for cancer for people living in Bishan and a mortality rate of 70% living in Yishun. To you, it would mean it is easier to get cancer staying in Yishun than in Bishan ?

What it is made known to you that the 80% sample population for the study in Yishun are smokers where-else only 30% in Bishan are smokers. Do you still think it is easier to get cancer staying in Yishun ?

Please do not continue to mislead anybody in this thread that you have \"proved\" something. That is furthest from the truth and as Mark Twain says, a \"damned lie\"

You are indeed smoking your way through. A fact is a fact in which a greater percentage of students obtain distinction for Physics/Math than English just simply means it is easier to obtain an A for the former. The probability translates into the ease of getting a distinction. Stop misleading others by giving erroneous and ridiculous examples to spread your ideology. It makes no sense and no link to the fact that smoking still cause cancer, be it that you smoke in Bishan or Yishun. Really wonder what you are thinking up in your head :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

I am really surprised that you can resort to a single piece of percentage to \"prove\" (your own words) a certain fact. Even MOE do not dare to make such a statement.

If you have nothing else more to contribute than repeating your misguided fallacies here, please leave this forum and do not flood this thread with your frivolous comments.