* Nanyang JC (NYJC)

[mjl]

KTKS:

zbear:

[quote=\"UBKmom\"]

I am quite puzzle...NYJC is one of the top JC and they already said they have performed well...why their reluctance to release even one bit of info...

I didn't know NYJC is one of the top JCs. I only know NYJC is a popular JC based on O level COP.

Agree with zbear.

Someone claimed NYJC improved by 14% this year. It's vague so I shall infer it to be the % of pupils who scored at least 3 H2 distinctions has improved by 14%.
Based on NYJC parent info, it was 31% in 2015. Hence 2016 batch should have 35% of pupils with at least 3 H2 distinctions.
VJC achieved 53% for 2016 batch.

In terms of COP:
VJC - 5(sci) / 7(arts)
NYJC - 6(sci) / 7(arts) - very close COP

In terms of % of pupils with at least 3 H2 distinctions:
VJC - 53%
NYJC - 35% - very different results

Hence it's not a top JC but simply a popular one.[/quote]Even if the inference is correct, surely 31+14 is 45 not 35.
Hope all the nitpicking and bashing will stop.
When top JCs admit mostly top students, it is natural they will produce top notch results. It would never be a fair comparison for all JCs. We should applaud all students with good results, whether they come from top JCs or not.

[mellory]

Agree with zbear.


Someone claimed NYJC improved by 14% this year. It's vague so I shall infer it to be the % of pupils who scored at least 3 H2 distinctions has improved by 14%.
Based on NYJC parent info, it was 31% in 2015. Hence 2016 batch should have 35% of pupils with at least 3 H2 distinctions.
VJC achieved 53% for 2016 batch.

In terms of COP:
VJC - 5(sci) / 7(arts)
NYJC - 6(sci) / 7(arts) - very close COP

In terms of % of pupils with at least 3 H2 distinctions:
VJC - 53%
NYJC - 35% - very different results

Hence it's not a top JC but simply a popular one.[/quote]
Even if the inference is correct, surely 31+14 is 45 not 35.
Hope all the nitpicking and bashing will stop.
When top JCs admit mostly top students, it is natural they will produce top notch results. It would never be a fair comparison for all JCs. We should applaud all students with good results, whether they come from top JCs or not.[/quote

Hi hi I don't mean to join the discussion, just want to talk about the simple maths: 14% increase of 31 IS 35, not 45! (31x0.14)+31

[EthanEthan]

mellory:

Hi hi I don't mean to join the discussion, just want to talk about the simple maths: 14% increase of 31 IS 35, not 45! (31x0.14)+31

you are good with percentages. :udaman:

[mjl]

mellory:

Hi hi I don't mean to join the discussion, just want to talk about the simple maths: 14% increase of 31 IS 35, not 45! (31x0.14)+31

If we are talking about a number not a %, yes 14% increase of 31 is 4.34%. However, if one is saying there is a 14% increase over the previous year's 31%, it makes more sense to add them.

[MyMelborne]

mjl:

mellory:

Hi hi I don't mean to join the discussion, just want to talk about the simple maths: 14% increase of 31 IS 35, not 45! (31x0.14)+31

If we are talking about a number not a %, yes 14% increase of 31 is 4.34%. However, if one is saying there is a 14% increase over the previous year's 31%, it makes more sense to add them.

mellory is definitely correct.

Let x be 31%
14% of x = 4.34.
Total will be x + 4.34 = 35.34
Unit of measure of x does not affect its computation.

Btw mjl, like to hear your fair view of the 'controversial' photo.

[EthanEthan]

mjl:

mellory:

Hi hi I don't mean to join the discussion, just want to talk about the simple maths: 14% increase of 31 IS 35, not 45! (31x0.14)+31

If we are talking about a number not a %, yes 14% increase of 31 is 4.34%. However, if one is saying there is a 14% increase over the previous year's 31%, it makes more sense to add them.

Er....you need to revise percentages.......

[mjl]

EthanEthan:

mjl:

[quote=\"mellory\"]Hi hi I don't mean to join the discussion, just want to talk about the simple maths: 14% increase of 31 IS 35, not 45! (31x0.14)+31

If we are talking about a number not a %, yes 14% increase of 31 is 4.34%. However, if one is saying there is a 14% increase over the previous year's 31%, it makes more sense to add them.

Er....you need to revise percentages.......[/quote]My mistake is, I should have said 14% increase of 31 is 4.34 (not 4.34%).

I still think it makes more sense to add them, as increase of 14% over 31% is 45%. (It is more of English?)

Refer to below:
\"Indian students showed the most improvement over the last 10 years, with 98 per cent being eligible for these courses at secondary schools. This is an increase of 2.1 percentage points compared with the 95.9 per cent in 2006.\"
Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/students-faring-better-at-psle-o-levels-and-a-levels-over-last-decade-moe-study

[EthanEthan]

mjl:

EthanEthan:

[quote=\"mjl\"]
If we are talking about a number not a %, yes 14% increase of 31 is 4.34%. However, if one is saying there is a 14% increase over the previous year's 31%, it makes more sense to add them.

Er....you need to revise percentages.......

My mistake is, I should have said 14% increase of 31 is 4.34 (not 4.34%).

I still think it makes more sense to add them, as increase of 14% over 31% is 45%. (It is more of English?)

Refer to below:
\"Indian students showed the most improvement over the last 10 years, with 98 per cent being eligible for these courses at secondary schools. This is an increase of 2.1 percentage points compared with the 95.9 per cent in 2006.\"
Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/students-faring-better-at-psle-o-levels-and-a-levels-over-last-decade-moe-study[/quote]Is there any difference between these 2 statements ?

1.This is an increase of 2.1 percentage points compared with the 95.9 per cent in 2006

2.This is an increase of 2.1 % compared with the 95.9 per cent in 2006

[MyMelborne]

mjl:

My mistake is, I should have said 14% increase of 31 is 4.34 (not 4.34%).

I still think it makes more sense to add them, as increase of 14% over 31% is 45%. (It is more of English?)

Refer to below:
\"Indian students showed the most improvement over the last 10 years, with 98 per cent being eligible for these courses at secondary schools. This is an increase of 2.1 percentage points compared with the 95.9 per cent in 2006.\"
Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/students-faring-better-at-psle-o-levels-and-a-levels-over-last-decade-moe-study

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogzTEmVbvSw&app=desktop
From the video at 0:30s, NYJC principal said \"Our students who have gotten a mimimum of 3H2 distinctions with a pass in GP improved by 14%\". Nothing else is stated.
If 31% was last year's figure, then 35% will be the figure this year.

[UBKmom]

KTKS:

zbear:

I didn't know NYJC is one of the top JCs. I only know NYJC is a popular JC based on O level COP.

Agree with zbear.

Someone claimed NYJC improved by 14% this year. It's vague so I shall infer it to be the % of pupils who scored at least 3 H2 distinctions has improved by 14%.
Based on NYJC parent info, it was 31% in 2015. Hence 2016 batch should have 35% of pupils with at least 3 H2 distinctions.
VJC achieved 53% for 2016 batch.

In terms of COP:
VJC - 5(sci) / 7(arts)
NYJC - 6(sci) / 7(arts) - very close COP

In terms of % of pupils with at least 3 H2 distinctions:
VJC - 53%
NYJC - 35% - very different results

Hence it's not a top JC but simply a popular one.

Under normal circumstances, if a JC is popular and able to attract good students, it will also be a top JC.

If this is the true case then I think NYJC is not maximizing the potential of her students. Is this the reason why they don’t want to release their detail results as it may affect their COP or popularity? But why this happen? It cannot be the student fault since they have similar COP/caliber. Not sure VS/Cedar IP made a different…..

Not only NYJC, I think its important for all JCs to release their detail results especially individual subject level as this will reflect the specific strength of a JC and will definitely useful to student in their selection of JC based on their interest.