* Eunoia JC (EJC)

[stetan]

Grandyma\" post_id=\"1900859\" time=\"1551598661\" user_id=\"153793:

i dont need you to give me creditbility.
My point of showing Econ % is to show you that EJC did well but not \" very well\" until it value added more than single digit JCs like what your EJCian parents claimed.
Most of you dont have the full data of EJC results yet can deduce EJC has done \"very well\". Based your \"very good\" conclusion on ??
82.4RP is good but not better than top tier JCs eg NJC- NJC RP cant be lowered from 84.4 to below 82.4 mah.

I dont need to to give you credibilty because you have none in the first place

First you claim that you have ALL THE SUBJECTS result that prove that other JC did better

Then you only give Econs and 3 pathetic JC to conpare, of which 2 are full IP kids Jcs

What happen to ALL the other subjects comparison? Are you selectively highlighting Econs only because It was the weaker subject?

What happen to conparison to NJC econs or NYJC econs, presumably your daughter’s and has a COP of 6 ?

All i can say is you are liar

[Grandyma]

obm\" post_id=\"1900856\" time=\"1551598032\" user_id=\"162988:

Perhaps your students and parents can nominate these super tutors from the Science dept for President's Award for Teachers (PAT) next Jan. Bear in mind this JC doesn't attract Olympians if I'm not wrong.

33% As for FMaths is very good considering this IPJC has a disproportionate no of male students (pardon my assumption that males are better in FMath and higher).

Not sure about the std of its Humanities dept.

Ah Ma, you need to read more carefully before shoving words into EJ parents' mouths. It was I (pg 73) who used the superlative 'very good' but I used it not on ALL subjects, but only FMaths (primarily based on my own sexist prejudice, like it or not I do not care).

And for info, I also used another personal pronoun 'your', which I thought any primary school pupil should be able to infer author is not one of the EJC parents. Unfortunately, your #comprefail.

Therefore, your comment that 'EJC parents said' 'ALL subjects' were 'very good' is incorrect on 3 counts. No one is boasting here. Cheers.[/quote]Pg 73 , 1 parent said that \"I think EJC did very well\" and the more value added than other single digit JCs.

[Grandyma]

stetan\" post_id=\"1900865\" time=\"1551599484\" user_id=\"3358:

Grandyma\" post_id=\"1900859\" time=\"1551598661\" user_id=\"153793:

i dont need you to give me creditbility.
My point of showing Econ % is to show you that EJC did well but not \" very well\" until it value added more than single digit JCs like what your EJCian parents claimed.
Most of you dont have the full data of EJC results yet can deduce EJC has done \"very well\". Based your \"very good\" conclusion on ??
82.4RP is good but not better than top tier JCs eg NJC- NJC RP cant be lowered from 84.4 to below 82.4 mah.

I dont need to to give you credibilty because you have none in the first place

First you claim that you have ALL THE SUBJECTS result that prove that other JC did better

Then you only give Econs and 3 pathetic JC to conpare, of which 2 are full IP kids Jcs

What happen to ALL the other subjects comparison? Are you selectively highlighting Econs only because It was the weaker subject?

What happen to conparison to NJC econs or NYJC econs, presumably your daughter’s and has a COP of 6 ?

All i can say is you are liar

Chill lah...see that you upset..
Did i say other JCs all subjects did better than EJC?
I did praise EJC did well and some subjects scored well.
My point is 1 parent or some said EJC value added more than other single digit JCs which not true as it has subj eg Econ,CSC didnt fare that well.

[lee_yl]

Grandyma\" post_id=\"1900859\" time=\"1551598661\" user_id=\"153793:

eg NJC- NJC RP cant be lowered from 84.4 to below 82.4 mah.

NJC median UAS is 84.4 and someone mentioned earlier in the A level thread, historically, median UAS can be anything 1-3 points higher than mean UAS.

So why can’t be lowered from 84.4 to 82.4? Because your mouth said can’t means can’t? Prove it with data.

I do not want to speculate on what is the mean UAS of NJC because I don’t have the exact figure.

[obm]

H2 Econs 48.x % is not too bad for a start. I was expecting 20% only.



I guess one needs to go back to COP of this Class to check the medians. DHS and RV’s highest tscore was over 270 back then. They hadn’t accepted any JAE students yet.

Like it or not (again you don’t have to agree with me), there’s some diff in capability between a 6-pointer versus a 10-pointer. A 10-pointer may have one B3 or B4 in his L1R5, and if that B4 happens to be his EL or Humanities, this candidate’s A level Humanities and GP will not be, erhm you know, …

Of course for 6-7-pointer, his EL and Humanities should be very strong at A1 or A2, so chances of him scoring well in his GP and contrasting Humanities subject (be it H1 or H2) will likely be pretty high.

My school had some 10+ pointers who came in because of sports so they got some point deduction and managed to get into commerce or arts (lower COP). Their final A level output viz the bulk of the remaining 2-6 pointers was quite different.

[obm]

Grandyma\" post_id=\"1900866\" time=\"1551599911\" user_id=\"153793:

obm\" post_id=\"1900856\" time=\"1551598032\" user_id=\"162988:

Therefore, your comment that 'EJC parents said' 'ALL subjects' were 'very good' is incorrect on 3 counts. No one is boasting here. Cheers.

Pg 73 , 1 parent said that \"I think EJC did very well\" and the more value added than other single digit JCs.

I see. Thanks. But that's 'relative' and judged from a grateful parent's perspective. If the parent thinks there's value-add, then there's value add.

Ong Ye Kung said if the student thinks his school is good, then that school is good. We've been advised to think the PAP way, so I'm not surprised that parent wrote what he did.

[lee_yl]

I went back to read page 73.


Grandyma, ppl said “I think EJC did very well. With a mean UAS of 82.x, taking into account its COP was 10 previously, it is really value-adding compared to the other JCs whose COP was single digit”

I find nothing wrong with the statement. There is a condition attached because EJC took in JAE students with COP 10. You chose to selectively misrepresent that statement and mislead others. Why did you choose to twist the story in your favor? Talking about misleading the public!

As an analogy, I can say that I think my daughter’s primary school did “very well” in nurturing her. The equivalent is you choosing to twist the story into saying, wa, are you saying your daughter primary school is number one ah?

[Grandyma]

obm\" post_id=\"1900874\" time=\"1551601206\" user_id=\"162988:

Grandyma\" post_id=\"1900866\" time=\"1551599911\" user_id=\"153793:

[quote=obm post_id=1900856 time=1551598032 user_id=162988]Therefore, your comment that 'EJC parents said' 'ALL subjects' were 'very good' is incorrect on 3 counts. No one is boasting here. Cheers.

Pg 73 , 1 parent said that \"I think EJC did very well\" and the more value added than other single digit JCs.

I see. Thanks. But that's 'relative' and judged from a grateful parent's perspective. If the parent thinks there's value-add, then there's value add.

Ong Ye Kung said if the student thinks his school is good, then that school is good. We've been advised to think the PAP way, so I'm not surprised that parent wrote what he did.[/quote]Alright. Thank you you too.

[Grandyma]

lee_yl\" post_id=\"1900879\" time=\"1551601779\" user_id=\"17023:

I went back to read page 73.

Grandyma, ppl said “I think EJC did very well. With a mean UAS of 82.x, taking into account its COP was 10 previously, it is really value-adding compared to the other JCs whose COP was single digit”

I find nothing wrong with the statement. There is a condition attached because EJC took in JAE students with COP 10. You chose to selectively misrepresent that statement and mislead others. Why did you choose to twist the story in your favor? Talking about misleading the public!

As an analogy, I can say that I think my daughter’s primary school did “very well” in nurturing her. The equivalent is you choosing to twist the story into saying, wa, are you saying your daughter primary school is number one ah?

People who read first statement: its telling us that other JCs with single digit COP didnt value add as much when Compared to EJC.
Isnt it what this statement mean?
Then you explain 'really value adding compared' mean what?
Unless I misinterpreted but i Didnt mislead the public bc I didnt say \"other single digit JCs really value added Compared to EJC\" such a statement.
From your last statement about \" your daughter Pri School....\" pls dont put words into my mouth...I will interpret and say \" your gal Pri Sch has done a good job\".
What num 1 school?

[lee_yl]

Grandyma\" post_id=\"1900891\" time=\"1551605618\" user_id=\"153793:

lee_yl\" post_id=\"1900879\" time=\"1551601779\" user_id=\"17023:

I went back to read page 73.

Grandyma, ppl said “I think EJC did very well. With a mean UAS of 82.x, taking into account its COP was 10 previously, it is really value-adding compared to the other JCs whose COP was single digit”

I find nothing wrong with the statement. There is a condition attached because EJC took in JAE students with COP 10. You chose to selectively misrepresent that statement and mislead others. Why did you choose to twist the story in your favor? Talking about misleading the public!

As an analogy, I can say that I think my daughter’s primary school did “very well” in nurturing her. The equivalent is you choosing to twist the story into saying, wa, are you saying your daughter primary school is number one ah?

People who read first statement: its telling us that other JCs with single digit COP didnt value add as much when Compared to EJC.
Isnt it what this statement mean?
Then you explain 'really value adding compared' mean what?
Unless I misinterpreted but i Didnt mislead the public bc I didnt say \"other single digit JCs really value added Compared to EJC\" such a statement.
From your last statement about \" your daughter Pri School....\" pls dont put words into my mouth...I will interpret and say \" your gal Pri Sch has done a good job\".
What num 1 school?

What a twisted interpretation! Your logic is simply convoluted. That EJC parent’s simple statement centres on EJC but did not exclude or deny the value-add of other JCs but you, plain jealous that EJC can value-add, chose to interpret that statement in a selfish manner which nobody else thinks this way. The parent is only praising EJC and you must take it that she is insinuating about your granddaughter’s JC? Saying well about EJC doesn’t mean speaking ill of other JCs. Poked your sore point is it?

Stuff words in your mouth? You don’t know what an analogy mean? People mentioned “very well” only, you quickly and selectively dish out academic data of other schools to prove otherwise. No?

You twist and turn until as if EJC parents are claiming EJ to be number 3 (after RI/HCI). If I didn’t go back to re-read page 73, I wouldn’t have known how you actually chop off the other half of ppl’s statement. Given your Ah Ma age, I wonder if you were one of those 红卫兵，so adept at 断章取义。