* Nanyang JC (NYJC)

[mindays]

IB mugger:

KTKS:

[quote=\"MyMelborne\"]

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.

2014 cohort -min 3H2 distinctions - 31%
2014 COP - 7 sci/ 8 arts

2015 cohort - min 3H2 distinctions - 35%
2015 COP - 7 sci / 7 arts
(NYJC arts hybrid is a popular choice as unusual combi are possible)

I am sure the improvement in COP has helped brought about the improvement of the current results.

think the latest batch with COP 6/7 has not graduated yet, only started their JC1 from February 2017?[/quote]both batches with COP 6/7 will graduate in 2017 (JC2s) and 2018 (JC1s) respectively

[mindays]

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]Well, a popular JC can be a top JC too. I wont deny that VJC is a popular JC and it is one of the top JCs in SG. So is RJ and HCI, they are popular and are the top.

[mindays]

In any case, what I feel matter most is how much the school value adds its students and if MOE did not scrap its policy to present awards to JCs which value add, we will get to see how well a school can mould the next generation

[mindays]

UBKmom:

KTKS:

[quote=\"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.[/quote]VJC has always produced excellent results, along side with DHS in the east. The COP for VJC and NYJC batch of graduants is as follows:

VJC Science/Arts
5/6

NYJC Science/Arts
7/7

COP wise, the majority of students will comprise of the science stream and a difference of COP of 2 is quite substantial IMHO. Nonetheless, both JCs have produced excellent results. My view is that: one has always been at the top, the other has been improving and rising up to the tier.

[MyMelborne]

mindays:

MyMelborne:

[quote=\"ilovelaksa\"][


This is really nice photo! I tot the graduating cohort went up cuz there's no other students milling around.

I think your initial thought is right, ilovelaksa.
There's definitely a mistake in the facebook!
Ever see Honour Roll awardees carrying haversacks and slingbags up the stage to receive their awards?
Without any student milling around the supposedly busy hall, it suggests that the entire graduating cohort are Honour Roll awardees. How is that possible? :?
Or what is the standard of Honour Roll that 100% of the students can achieve?

Should you feel that there is a mistake, you can always drop a message to Nanyang JC's Facebook page. I am sure they will clarify any doubts you may have. Thereafter, you can share with us the information you gather. The people here will appreciate your kindness, instead of using words like \"definitely\" to prove something that's not definite yet.[/quote]Why should I risk exposing my privacy in FB for a mistake (intentional or unintentional) made by NY (official)? It's the defender's job to clarify. I am not sure if they will clarify my doubts anyway.

[MyMelborne]

mindays:

In any case, what I feel matter most is how much the school value adds its students and if MOE did not scrap its policy to present awards to JCs which value add, we will get to see how well a school can mould the next generation

Another channel is for NY to show more statistics but somehow it is more secretive than other JCs in the same league of COP.

[MyMelborne]

mindays:

I have doubts of last year's 3H2 distinction rates to be 31% (anyone can provide evidence eg. photos). TBH, a 14% increase could mean a 14% increase in magnitude of candidates, could mean increase in percentages.


From what I have gathered (you can ignore this if you feel that this content may not make you comfortable or if you do not believe it), the average UAS for the 2017 A level results is as follows:
(UAS Median)

HCI: 87.8
RI: 87.8

Mean UAS
TJC: 80 (confirm with the other TJC parents)
NYJC: probably more than 81 (since last year it was announced that it was 81+ I gather that there is bound to have improvements in this year as compared to the previous)

I agree that the 31% or 80/81 UAS may be overstated or understated figures.
It's good that you acknowledged that the above are debatable, especially for unofficial stats of TJC. Otherwise I will think that you are trying to draw potential pupils away from TJ to NY. :evil:

[MyMelborne]

Crester:

Nyjc has posted photos of their Top Honours students is 1 way of its fantastic A Level performance.

Please clarify your definition of Top Honours students and provide the link for the photos.
If you are referring to that debatable Honour roll awardees photo in FB, it would include both academic and non-academic achievers. It's misleading to refer them as proof of its 'fantastic A level performance'.

NYJC is certainly careful not to show photos to applaud the minimum 3H2 distinctions awardees or to reveal any kind of stats that will give away its true performance. Nothing wrong, just that it's a fact that there's no way to prove its 'fantastic' results and perhaps it's a smarter move than those which are more 'opened' in their report cards.

[jetsetter]

mjl:

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.

mjl:
Agree with you this hairsplitting debate should stop. Btw, why should NYJC even compare itself with IPJCs? IPJCs consist of the top10% of PSLE students, but NYJC only takes in the rest of the O level track students with 6/7 points (not to mention some might have come in after the deduction of \"L1R5 bonus points\" for CLEP, affiliation and HMT).

With this sort of limitation, it is perfectly understandable NYJC can never hit 50-60% AAA/A, unlike IPJCs.

Your calculation doesn't make sense because the P didn't say \"percentage point increase\". It's all a matter of word play as all statisticians do. Nothing factually wrong or criminal on the P's part; it's just to boost the morale of their pupils and parents when there's been an increase.

The group photo doesn't look like more than 300 students to me. If you use a facial recognition software to pick out the human faces, you should get about 230-240 pax. You got to minus Mr Kwek and Mr Low and probably a few VPs from the total. NYJC has about 700 candidates http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/she-was-some-schoolmates-first-malay-friend. So that should give you 35% like all the rest are trying to say. 45% is a tad optimistic if not far-fetched, if based solely on this FB photo.

You can watch the Youtube video to see the rest of the 65% when the camera pans across the hall.

[MyMelborne]

jetsetter:

mjl:
Agree with you this hairsplitting debate should stop. Btw, why should NYJC even compare itself with IPJCs? IPJCs consist of the top10% of PSLE students, but NYJC only takes in the rest of the O level track students with 6/7 points (not to mention some might have come in after the deduction of \"L1R5 bonus points\" for CLEP, affiliation and HMT).

With this sort of limitation, it is perfectly understandable NYJC can never hit 50-60% AAA/A, unlike IPJCs.

I guess others like myself feel that KSP is a good arena to discuss, dispute, clarify doubts and voice our sentiments over issues. It's natural that certain topics will escalate to more 'heated' arguments when forummers don't see eye to eye. Guess it's fine as long as there isn't any verbal bullying but instead helps in clarifying doubts which otherwise would remain misunderstood, misinterpreted or misled by many.
The fact that NYJC COP has reached a point to being close to VJC or at par with NJC makes it logical to compare NYJC with IPJCs. Some may feel that the COP is not justifiable (yet?) and hence some 'skeptical' discussions.

I understand that you have some sort of connections with the principal to hint that he has visited this KSP forum on several occasions. If he insists on remaining silent, then we can carry on with our debates, speculations or even suspicions, can't we?