8 Junior Colleges are Merging? Rumors or Reality?
-
I suspect MOE may have underestimated the level of unhappiness when they made this merger announcement. The sensitivities of alumni were not taken into account, and what made it worse is when the ministry attempted to explain that the mergers have nothing to do with their cut-off points. It might have been better if the ministry stuck to the message that the JCs were merged because they simply lack the critical mass to continue to operate effectively by themselves.
Nobody likes their alma mater to disappear. I myself have fond memories of my days in TJC, and knowing that it is still around for me to visit when I want to relive those times - that is the home-coming that we value more and more as we age. All the snide remarks about merging NJC and HCJC instead, atas vs normal, etc, is a consequence of this natural love for our roots. Why must it be my school and not YOUR school? A lot of people are in pain.
I strongly feel that MOE and the affected schools should reach out to their alumni, reconnect with them and help them reconnect with their old schoolmates, and set up something to allow the alumni to remember and celebrate their roots. Don’t cheapen their memories by shutting down the JCs at short notice like you would to an underperforming retail store. -
actually the more I think about it, the more I feel MOE should explain their rationale more to the public on the merger and why these 8 JCs.
If indeed due to falling enrollment, can they show us indeed these 8 JCs or perhaps the 4 disappearing ones are indeed the ones with the lowest enrollment and therefore least popular and therefore should be merged. I think by so far they only made a sweeping statement showing overall decline in birth rate and lowered JC population along the years. Also, if indeed these 4 are the lowest enrollment, then too bad, they probably should go due to falling popularity. But if a school is spared due to affiliation reasons or "different governance structure", then I think it is a tad too unfair. Is it trying to say "too many stakeholders, therefore choose the easier alternative"? Must be fair meh…otherwise, next time, for no reason, all parents will flock to affiliated schools starting from kindergarten… -
Imp75:
Aren't the parents of today already doing that, with or without the mergers ?
....otherwise, next time, for no reason, all parents will flock to affiliated schools starting from kindergarten.... -
Imp75:
To take surgery knife n operate on full govt funded sch is faster n moe can have full control,actually the more I think about it, the more I feel MOE should explain their rationale more to the public on the merger and why these 8 JCs.
If indeed due to falling enrollment, can they show us indeed these 8 JCs or perhaps the 4 disappearing ones are indeed the ones with the lowest enrollment and therefore least popular and therefore should be merged. I think by so far they only made a sweeping statement showing overall decline in birth rate and lowered JC population along the years. Also, if indeed these 4 are the lowest enrollment, then too bad, they probably should go due to falling popularity. But if a school is spared due to affiliation reasons or \"different governance structure\", then I think it is a tad too unfair. Is it trying to say \"too many stakeholders, therefore choose the easier alternative\"? Must be fair meh....otherwise, next time, for no reason, all parents will flock to affiliated schools starting from kindergarten....
Aided sch/jc has more autonomy since they rec so much lesser fund $ fr govt -
Imp75:
7 out of the 8 JCs to be merged have the lowest COPs. Since COP is a result of demand and supply, I would take it as a reflection of popularity (and therefore enrolment) since technically the most popular JCs will be filled up first before the balance is spilled over to the next JC). AJC is \"collateral damage\", as someone has previously mentioned,actually the more I think about it, the more I feel MOE should explain their rationale more to the public on the merger and why these 8 JCs.
If indeed due to falling enrollment, can they show us indeed these 8 JCs or perhaps the 4 disappearing ones are indeed the ones with the lowest enrollment and therefore least popular and therefore should be merged. I think by so far they only made a sweeping statement showing overall decline in birth rate and lowered JC population along the years. Also, if indeed these 4 are the lowest enrollment, then too bad, they probably should go due to falling popularity. But if a school is spared due to affiliation reasons or \"different governance structure\", then I think it is a tad too unfair. Is it trying to say \"too many stakeholders, therefore choose the easier alternative\"? Must be fair meh....otherwise, next time, for no reason, all parents will flock to affiliated schools starting from kindergarten.... -
MotherHen:
Will there be an instance where IJC is actually very popular b/c it absorbs all the 17-20 pointers, that its enrolment is much bigger than say a higher-ranked COP school? I thought COP is set by JC school prior to admission unlike sec school which sways according to the last student's COP?
7 out of the 8 JCs to be merged have the lowest COPs. Since COP is a result of demand and supply, I would take it as a reflection of popularity (and therefore enrolment) since technically the most popular JCs will be filled up first before the balance is spilled over to the next JC). AJC is \"collateral damage\", as someone has previously mentioned,Imp75:
actually the more I think about it, the more I feel MOE should explain their rationale more to the public on the merger and why these 8 JCs.
If indeed due to falling enrollment, can they show us indeed these 8 JCs or perhaps the 4 disappearing ones are indeed the ones with the lowest enrollment and therefore least popular and therefore should be merged. I think by so far they only made a sweeping statement showing overall decline in birth rate and lowered JC population along the years. Also, if indeed these 4 are the lowest enrollment, then too bad, they probably should go due to falling popularity. But if a school is spared due to affiliation reasons or \"different governance structure\", then I think it is a tad too unfair. Is it trying to say \"too many stakeholders, therefore choose the easier alternative\"? Must be fair meh....otherwise, next time, for no reason, all parents will flock to affiliated schools starting from kindergarten.... -
Imp75:
Will there be an instance where IJC is actually very popular b/c it absorbs all the 17-20 pointers, that its enrolment is much bigger than say a higher-ranked COP school? I thought COP is set by JC school prior to admission unlike sec school which sways according to the last student's COP?[/quote]You can't set a COP prior to admission given the constraint in infrastructure. Each JC can only set a max enrolment figure and then see how things go. COP will be determined by the demand.
7 out of the 8 JCs to be merged have the lowest COPs. Since COP is a result of demand and supply, I would take it as a reflection of popularity (and therefore enrolment) since technically the most popular JCs will be filled up first before the balance is spilled over to the next JC). AJC is \"collateral damage\", as someone has previously mentioned,MotherHen:
[quote=\"Imp75\"]actually the more I think about it, the more I feel MOE should explain their rationale more to the public on the merger and why these 8 JCs.
If indeed due to falling enrollment, can they show us indeed these 8 JCs or perhaps the 4 disappearing ones are indeed the ones with the lowest enrollment and therefore least popular and therefore should be merged. I think by so far they only made a sweeping statement showing overall decline in birth rate and lowered JC population along the years. Also, if indeed these 4 are the lowest enrollment, then too bad, they probably should go due to falling popularity. But if a school is spared due to affiliation reasons or \"different governance structure\", then I think it is a tad too unfair. Is it trying to say \"too many stakeholders, therefore choose the easier alternative\"? Must be fair meh....otherwise, next time, for no reason, all parents will flock to affiliated schools starting from kindergarten....
It is probable that IJC could not max its intake despite having an extremely high COP. -
Imp75:
I thought COP is set by JC school prior to admission unlike sec school which sways according to the last student's COP?
As far as I know, JC COP is also set by the quality of applicants and available spaces, not by the JC. If overnight, no-one wants to apply to those \"top\" JCs, their COP could well fall to 20. -
slmkhoo:
Not quite 20 yet, but *ahem* see TJC.Imp75:
I thought COP is set by JC school prior to admission unlike sec school which sways according to the last student's COP?
As far as I know, JC COP is also set by the quality of applicants and available spaces, not by the JC. If overnight, no-one wants to apply to those \"top\" JCs, their COP could well fall to 20. -
thanks for the explanation makes sense that the 7 JCs are chosen due to falling popularity as implied by their COP. AJC (instead of CJC) is the sacrificial lamb then? I always thought that if you have a COP of 3/4, you definitely can get into RI or HCI. So there is a possibility that you will get ousted if there are too many 3/4 pointers that particular year, same like the sec school psle cutoff where this year some girls did not get to RGS as its COP moved up from 260 to 261.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login