Networking Group - JCs General

[jetsetter]

Sieg:

floppy:

[quote=\"Sieg\"]\"As to why new JCs such as Eunoia were still being opened if enrolment was dwindling, MOE said that Eunoia JC was opened not to increase capacity but to give students more options, and for a more varied educational landscape\".


This is vague. Can someone please elaborate on the \"give more options and varied educational landscape\".

Because someone, somewhere screws up.
If you cannot convince them, confuse them - and the best way of confusing people is to lump together a few comprehensible, but totally meaning phrases.

this is one good interpretation.

My initial thought was EJC, being an IP-JC housing legit brighter students, is one that our 'garmen' would love to promote while those poorer-performing jcs are to be eliminated. In short, it is promoting elitism that will result in further kiasuism among anxious parents here. Not afraid birth rate will be afffected? Things will work well here only if one is blessed with academically smart kid(s).[/quote]Do those merged JCs have high JC1 retention rates? If yes, isn't it better for those kids with 15-20 points to join MI or poly to get a diploma which is higher than A level cert?

[zbear]

Just thinking aloud - it’s an irony that MOE build a new JC (Euonia) to cater to the demand for more IP JCs n shrinking the no of lower JCs (non IP). isn’t this creating more stress amongst the Primary kids (PSLE) and parents who don’t want to go to Poly but JC and for those who are determined to try n not give up just becos you are lesser capable than the high ability ones?


Is this another way of creating elitism when MOE die die says All Schools Are Good??? Is this motto still good???

[candyfan]

Sieg:

\"As to why new JCs such as Eunoia were still being opened if enrolment was dwindling, MOE said that Eunoia JC was opened not to increase capacity but to give students more options, and for a more varied educational landscape\".


This is vague. Can someone please elaborate on the \"give more options and varied educational landscape\".

I have nothing against EJC but just inputting my viewpoints here.
Why did MOE choose YJC and AJC as the premises for the merging JCs? They are relatively smaller and more rundown than those JCs they are 'absorbing'. In contrast, EJC looks 'gorgeous' with this artist's impression:

https://s2.postimg.org/viei3kuc9/IMG_0600.png\">[/quote]

[Nebbermind]

Is poly really that unpopular?

[stetan]

It looks like MOE is thinking that post secondary education is mostly via the IP route - RI HCI NJC VJC EJC TJC DHS RVHS ACSI SJI - going back 1 full round to the times where Pre U is integrated with the more elite sec schools. Lesser performing non IP JCs will be slowly closing down?


None of the 5 polys is being merged. I guess they are channeling the lower ability students to polys.

Also, i think they should just merge HC with NJC since they are just directly opp each other. Why have 2 JC at the same site?

[jetsetter]

floppy:

Because someone, somewhere screws up.
If you cannot convince them, confuse them - and the best way of confusing people is to lump together a few comprehensible, but totally meaning phrases.

Correction: should read \"meaningless\".

Think no one had a crystal ball back in the early noughties. Look at the spike in births in Y2K...did it look promising? No wonder RAdm TCH and subsequently Tharman went ahead to approve the building of those 3 new lower-tier JCs.

Also notice these soon-to-be white dumbos were built post 911, when our realty/building & construction sector was in doldrums. We all know govt spending on infrastructure will suddenly increase to boost the economy, given that infrastructure is a key driver of economic activity and a catalyst for growth. The last approval was for the building of that useless sportshub (2007-08 recession).

https://s18.postimg.org/4kj0bn409/170420_moe_falling-births_online.jpg\">

[jetsetter]

-

[jetsetter]

can the mods merge the relevant posts ?

[candyfan]

jetsetter:

Sieg:

this is one good interpretation.

My initial thought was EJC, being an IP-JC housing legit brighter students, is one that our 'garmen' would love to promote while those poorer-performing jcs are to be eliminated. In short, it is promoting elitism that will result in further kiasuism among anxious parents here. Not afraid birth rate will be afffected? Things will work well here only if one is blessed with academically smart kid(s).

Do those merged JCs have high JC1 retention rates? If yes, isn't it better for those kids with 15-20 points to join MI or poly to get a diploma which is higher than A level cert?

From what I know, retention rate is approx 10% on average.

Pupils won't know if they will succeed in JC unless they try. I believe most will take the 2 year JC route instead of the 3 year MI if eligible. At most they will retain for a year in JC which will make up to 3 years too.

Poly courses are more 'hands-on' and involve many graded projects. Not everyone is suitable, I guess.

[sharonkhoo]

stetan:

None of the 5 polys is being merged. I guess they are channeling the lower ability students to polys.

I think it's the other way round - based on what I see/hear among many of the averagely-performing students I know, quite a large proportion prefer to choose poly rather than JC, which would seem to indicate that JCs are falling in popularity. There are students who know that the poly style of more hands-on education is not for them, and those who prefer the depth of A levels/IB and are sure they will go on to university, but I think quite a lot are attracted to polys. Polys give the option of a clearly work-ready diploma plus the possibility of continuing to university; A levels, if the student doesn't go on to university, aren't so useful in landing a job.