* Nanyang JC (NYJC)

[stetan]

mindays:

If you have read my post carefully, I have used the word \"probably\". In any case you have not justified how impressive NJC results really is. My point is that non-IP JCs can be comparable to IPJCs and it is not necessary that an IPJC is always more superior than a non-IPJC. That's it, period.

I am sure when you said \"probably\", you would have some inside knowledge of NYJC results, or else why would you made such an audacious statement ?

You mean you have not seen NJC results ? Then how did you come to the conclusion that NYJC's results is probably on par when you don't even know what's NJC result ? I hope it is not based on COP or number of people seen at the openhouses.

[mindays]

stetan:

mindays:

If you have read my post carefully, I have used the word \"probably\". In any case you have not justified how impressive NJC results really is. My point is that non-IP JCs can be comparable to IPJCs and it is not necessary that an IPJC is always more superior than a non-IPJC. That's it, period.

I am sure when you said \"probably\", you would have some inside knowledge of NYJC results, or else why would you made such an audacious statement ?

You mean you have not seen NJC results ? Then how did you come to the conclusion that NYJC's results is probably on par when you don't even know what's NJC result ? I hope it is not based on COP or number of people seen at the openhouses.

And that's why the word \"probably\" is invented and utilised.

[stetan]

mindays:

stetan:

[quote=\"mindays\"]

If you have read my post carefully, I have used the word \"probably\". In any case you have not justified how impressive NJC results really is. My point is that non-IP JCs can be comparable to IPJCs and it is not necessary that an IPJC is always more superior than a non-IPJC. That's it, period.

I am sure when you said \"probably\", you would have some inside knowledge of NYJC results, or else why would you made such an audacious statement ?

You mean you have not seen NJC results ? Then how did you come to the conclusion that NYJC's results is probably on par when you don't even know what's NJC result ? I hope it is not based on COP or number of people seen at the openhouses.

And that's why the word \"probably\" is invented and utilised.[/quote]Like that also can?? Then why dont you say NYJC result is probably on par with HCI/Ri? :rotflmao:

[iFirefly]

stetan:

mindays:

And that's why the word \"probably\" is invented and utilised.

Like that also can?? Then why dont you say NYJC result is probably on par with HCI/Ri? :rotflmao:

@ Mindrays..

If you think NYJC's results is probably on par with NJC's, do you think it is also probably on par with DHS' results ?

DHS has just updated her 2017 A Level results on the school website. Its simply spectacular ! Do you think DHS has probably overtaken VJC to be in 3rd place this year ? If yes, do you think NYJC's results is probably on par with VJC's too ? :evil:

[mindays]

iFirefly:

stetan:

[quote=\"mindays\"]
And that's why the word \"probably\" is invented and utilised.

Like that also can?? Then why dont you say NYJC result is probably on par with HCI/Ri? :rotflmao:

@ Mindrays..

If you think NYJC's results is probably on par with NJC's, do you think it is also probably on par with DHS' results ?

DHS has just updated her 2017 A Level results on the school website. Its simply spectacular ! Do you think DHS has probably overtaken VJC to be in 3rd place this year ? If yes, do you think NYJC's results is probably on par with VJC's too ? :evil:[/quote]I have my reasons for bringing in NJC this year, okay, allow me to explain, no offense intended.

I took note of NJ's results as follows:
H2 Subjects with at least 50% Distinctions
• Art
• Chinese Language & Literature
• Economics
• French
• German
• History
• Knowledge & Inquiry
• Mathematics
• Physics
• Tamil Language & Literature

Note that these H2 subjects are mostly taken by the minorities of NJ: Art, Chinese Language & Literature, French, German, Knowledge & Inquiry, Tamil Language & Literature. 6 out of 10 of the subjects that were posted on its website are subjects that are taken by the minority of the students (assuming the popular science courses in NJC is just as regular as the other JCs: PCME and BCME) Note that common humanities like Geography and Literature are not above the 50% rate.

NJC had 46% of its students scoring at least 3H2 distinctions LAST YEAR (2015 A level results). NJC has also been relatively silent about its A level results for 2016 as compared to 2015. This may mean that the 2016's results may not be as good as 2015's. This means that there may be fewer than 46% of its students achieving 3H2 distinctions. In contrast to NYJC, taking that the cohort size is 700 and 260 of them got 3H2 distinctions, the percentage (rounded down to be more prudent) is 37%. That's why I said that NYJC is probably comparable to NJC.

Given that NJC is well known for its science related programmes and its excellence in that, I would have expected its results for H2 Chemistry and H2 Biology to be one of the subjects that exceeds 50% distinction rates. As a top 5 JC (or supposedly so), it is a given that H2 Math and H2 Sciences subjects (majority take PCME too) should surpass the 50% barrier. In this case, H2 Math did and H2 Physics too. This brings me to the point that NJC may not have done as well as the other IPJCs like VJ or DHS, not to even compare with RI or HCI.

Out of all the IP JCs (there are 7 which take the A levels (2016 batch)), I took the last 3 of the tier (TJC, RVHS and NJC) and said that it is probably comparable to a top non-IP JC (in this case NYJC, but to be more correct, ACJC as its 6/7 for that year) based on COP. Rationale: logically speaking, these non-IPJCs should comprise of top o level students that didn't go IPJCs, hence COP is used.

I have no ill intentions to downgrade any JCs but rather to show that non-IP JCs can be as capable as IPJCs.

[mindays]

stetan:

Like that also can?? Then why dont you say NYJC result is probably on par with HCI/Ri? :rotflmao:

See my rationale directed to iFirefly and that's the reason why I didn't say it is probably on par with HCI/RI, that's being realistic. When I asked you to interpret the \"fantastic\" results by NJC that you have said, you failed to do so. I have thus interpreted it for you through my reply to iFirefly and I hope it will seem logical to you.

[stetan]

mindays:

This means (NJC) that there may be fewer than 46% of its students achieving 3H2 distinctions. In contrast to NYJC, taking that the cohort size is 700 and 260 of them got 3H2 distinctions, the percentage (rounded down to be more prudent) is 37%. That's why I said that NYJC is probably comparable to NJC.
.

So you are saying 46% is on par to 37% ? I learnt something new today

(btw, I thought a number of forummers have calculated NYJC % to be only 35%?)

[ryanryan]

mindays:

I have my reasons for bringing in NJC this year, okay, allow me to explain, no offense intended.

I took note of NJ's results as follows:
H2 Subjects with at least 50% Distinctions
• Art
• Chinese Language & Literature
• Economics
• French
• German
• History
• Knowledge & Inquiry
• Mathematics
• Physics
• Tamil Language & Literature

Note that these H2 subjects are mostly taken by the minorities of NJ: Art, Chinese Language & Literature, French, German, Knowledge & Inquiry, Tamil Language & Literature. 6 out of 10 of the subjects that were posted on its website are subjects that are taken by the minority of the students (assuming the popular science courses in NJC is just as regular as the other JCs: PCME and BCME) Note that common humanities like Geography and Literature are not above the 50% rate.

NJC had 46% of its students scoring at least 3H2 distinctions LAST YEAR (2015 A level results). NJC has also been relatively silent about its A level results for 2016 as compared to 2015. This may mean that the 2016's results may not be as good as 2015's. This means that there may be fewer than 46% of its students achieving 3H2 distinctions. In contrast to NYJC, taking that the cohort size is 700 and 260 of them got 3H2 distinctions, the percentage (rounded down to be more prudent) is 37%. That's why I said that NYJC is probably comparable to NJC.

Given that NJC is well known for its science related programmes and its excellence in that, I would have expected its results for H2 Chemistry and H2 Biology to be one of the subjects that exceeds 50% distinction rates. As a top 5 JC (or supposedly so), it is a given that H2 Math and H2 Sciences subjects (majority take PCME too) should surpass the 50% barrier. In this case, H2 Math did and H2 Physics too. This brings me to the point that NJC may not have done as well as the other IPJCs like VJ or DHS, not to even compare with RI or HCI.

Out of all the IP JCs (there are 7 which take the A levels (2016 batch)), I took the last 3 of the tier (TJC, RVHS and NJC) and said that it is probably comparable to a top non-IP JC (in this case NYJC, but to be more correct, ACJC as its 6/7 for that year) based on COP. Rationale: logically speaking, these non-IPJCs should comprise of top o level students that didn't go IPJCs, hence COP is used.

I have no ill intentions to downgrade any JCs but rather to show that non-IP JCs can be as capable as IPJCs.

So in your opinion, TJC, RVHS and NJC are the last 3 ? are they so bad as you described ?

[kwcllf]

mindays:

I have my reasons for bringing in NJC this year, okay, allow me to explain, no offense intended.


I took note of NJ's results as follows:
H2 Subjects with at least 50% Distinctions
• Art
• Chinese Language & Literature
• Economics
• French
• German
• History
• Knowledge & Inquiry
• Mathematics
• Physics
• Tamil Language & Literature

Note that these H2 subjects are mostly taken by the minorities of NJ: Art, Chinese Language & Literature, French, German, Knowledge & Inquiry, Tamil Language & Literature. 6 out of 10 of the subjects that were posted on its website are subjects that are taken by the minority of the students (assuming the popular science courses in NJC is just as regular as the other JCs: PCME and BCME) Note that common humanities like Geography and Literature are not above the 50% rate.

NJC had 46% of its students scoring at least 3H2 distinctions LAST YEAR (2015 A level results). NJC has also been relatively silent about its A level results for 2016 as compared to 2015. This may mean that the 2016's results may not be as good as 2015's. This means that there may be fewer than 46% of its students achieving 3H2 distinctions. In contrast to NYJC, taking that the cohort size is 700 and 260 of them got 3H2 distinctions, the percentage (rounded down to be more prudent) is 37%. That's why I said that NYJC is probably comparable to NJC.

Given that NJC is well known for its science related programmes and its excellence in that, I would have expected its results for H2 Chemistry and H2 Biology to be one of the subjects that exceeds 50% distinction rates. As a top 5 JC (or supposedly so), it is a given that H2 Math and H2 Sciences subjects (majority take PCME too) should surpass the 50% barrier. In this case, H2 Math did and H2 Physics too. This brings me to the point that NJC may not have done as well as the other IPJCs like VJ or DHS, not to even compare with RI or HCI.

Out of all the IP JCs (there are 7 which take the A levels (2016 batch)), I took the last 3 of the tier (TJC, RVHS and NJC) and said that it is probably comparable to a top non-IP JC (in this case NYJC, but to be more correct, ACJC as its 6/7 for that year) based on COP. Rationale: logically speaking, these non-IPJCs should comprise of top o level students that didn't go IPJCs, hence COP is used.

I have no ill intentions to downgrade any JCs but rather to show that non-IP JCs can be as capable as IPJCs.

All in all, it is almost impossible to compare due to so many variables. Even for IPJCs, the proportion of IP to JAE students vary a lot. Some have overwhelmingly IP students and some JAE students.

Since IPJCs do not provide a breakdown on how well its IP or JAE students perform in comparison to each other, it is difficult to draw a conclusion. Although IP students are mostly top PSLE students, does that mean that they will perform better than JAE students at the \"A\" Levels?

Also, most likely top JAE students will choose JCs like HCI and RI, followed by the rest like NJC, VJC, NYJC, etc........ So, I think this contributes to how well JCs perform overall.

[UBKmom]

mindays:

I have my reasons for bringing in NJC this year, okay, allow me to explain, no offense intended.

I took note of NJ's results as follows:
H2 Subjects with at least 50% Distinctions
• Art
• Chinese Language & Literature
• Economics
• French
• German
• History
• Knowledge & Inquiry
• Mathematics
• Physics
• Tamil Language & Literature

Note that these H2 subjects are mostly taken by the minorities of NJ: Art, Chinese Language & Literature, French, German, Knowledge & Inquiry, Tamil Language & Literature. 6 out of 10 of the subjects that were posted on its website are subjects that are taken by the minority of the students (assuming the popular science courses in NJC is just as regular as the other JCs: PCME and BCME) Note that common humanities like Geography and Literature are not above the 50% rate.

NJC had 46% of its students scoring at least 3H2 distinctions LAST YEAR (2015 A level results). NJC has also been relatively silent about its A level results for 2016 as compared to 2015. This may mean that the 2016's results may not be as good as 2015's. This means that there may be fewer than 46% of its students achieving 3H2 distinctions. In contrast to NYJC, taking that the cohort size is 700 and 260 of them got 3H2 distinctions, the percentage (rounded down to be more prudent) is 37%. That's why I said that NYJC is probably comparable to NJC.

Given that NJC is well known for its science related programmes and its excellence in that, I would have expected its results for H2 Chemistry and H2 Biology to be one of the subjects that exceeds 50% distinction rates. As a top 5 JC (or supposedly so), it is a given that H2 Math and H2 Sciences subjects (majority take PCME too) should surpass the 50% barrier. In this case, H2 Math did and H2 Physics too. This brings me to the point that NJC may not have done as well as the other IPJCs like VJ or DHS, not to even compare with RI or HCI.

Out of all the IP JCs (there are 7 which take the A levels (2016 batch)), I took the last 3 of the tier (TJC, RVHS and NJC) and said that it is probably comparable to a top non-IP JC (in this case NYJC, but to be more correct, ACJC as its 6/7 for that year) based on COP. Rationale: logically speaking, these non-IPJCs should comprise of top o level students that didn't go IPJCs, hence COP is used.

I have no ill intentions to downgrade any JCs but rather to show that non-IP JCs can be as capable as IPJCs.

I agreed with Mindays on the NJC's A level resutls analysis but my question is what happen to NJC if the analysis is correct? They took in IP with COP of 255~258 and JAE students at 7/5 in 2014, 6/5 in 2015 which I consider it to be of high calibre and quality students. The reason cannot be HCI opposite as they are there for decades, I think the increase in IP schools and Eunoia JC could have take a toll on NJ. May be they should team up with a top secondary school and increase their intake of IP students...look at VJC...NJC is the oldest JC with excellent academic achievements in past and I hate to see her deteriorate further....