New L1R4 system for JC entry

[bbbay]

I got to know about the new L1R4 system from Education minister parliamentary speech on YouTube.

https://youtu.be/R3lDaE5NCls?si=IHbj98yWEMgd5sgz

He shared once he asked a group of JC students whether it will help to reduce stress if he reduces their syllabus by half. Those students replied they will be more stress bcos they will then have to compete down to 3 decimal places in their scores.

Another remark is , it wont help if we compete to last decimal point and continue pile on what MOE removed or reduces

The minister commented he is under no illusion that while we reduce the subjects counted in JC admission, we won’t go far if mindsets to compete do not change.

The key take away is while we can change our education systems , society and parents mindsets have to change too.

[sharonkhoo]

@bbbay said in New L1R4 system for JC entry:

I do not think it will reduce stress level. Currently with L1R5, many students are still take more than 6 O level subjects and working towards best grades they can achieve in all subjects, as safety net. This same safety net mindset will still prevail with the new L1R4 system.

I agree that stress may not reduce, at least for the more competitive students/parents. Stress is to a large extent self-induced. But those who are willing to let go a bit should find it less stressful.

What caught my eye in the ST article I read this morning was the statistic that only 27% of O level students went to JC, while 43% went to poly. I recall that it was intended that about a third would go to JC and another third to poly - at least that is what I remember from some years ago. My concern is that poly education is more applied and hands-on (which is good for many), but does it mean that fewer students are reading widely, thinking deeply, and getting practice in writing well, more extensively, and investigating issues more rigorously? And universities are leaning that way too. What does that say for the future of thought and discourse in Singapore?

[zac's mum]

@floppy at the moment i hear of kids choosing to do all 3 sciences at upper sec because they really cannot decide which science to give up (there are several other reasons of course).

I think this change might force them to really think more carefully which 2 sciences they plan to offer at O and A levels. The JC unofficial pre-requisite system is a big factor because eg at most higher-tier JCs they cannot take H2 Bio if did not take O level Pure Bio. Likewise for H2 Physics I believe - need O level Pure Physics + Amath?

Anyway, my DS is struggling badly with Amath despite A1 for Emath. Too abstract for him. If under new system he prob won’t even take that combi cos aiming for Arts stream. Really more time & energy to breathe & destress.

[zac's mum]

@slmkhoo from Zac’s school briefings, what was shared is that many good O level scorers are now choosing Poly over JC. Several reasons:

1. The hot career path right now is ICT-related. People are attracted by the big bucks salary, and Poly offers the fastest way to enter the industry.

2. Some kids have been interested in coding/robotics and computer programming since young (their passion). This includes kids in SST. They may be good in Math & Physics, but poor in languages, and/or particularly their MT. Poly allows these bright kids to specialize in their deep interests, without the stress of having to buck up their MT and/or English to a distinction.

3. Ditto the above group of kids interested in Poly, they may excel more in project work. So they have a good portfolio of robotics etc competitions, to showcase for EAE to Poly. Don’t need to or don’t like to rely on a one-off national written exam (O levels) as a measure of their IQ.

[doodbug]

Going by the COP to the Poly courses, it is evident that there is a sizable group of students with single digit L1R4 who qualify for JC opting instead for the Poly route. It also explains the fairly large proportion of Poly students in all the local universities nowadays. With Poly, there are no GP or MT requirements to contend with for local university entry.

[doodbug]

@slmkhoo said in New L1R4 system for JC entry:

@bbbay said in New L1R4 system for JC entry:

I do not think it will reduce stress level. Currently with L1R5, many students are still take more than 6 O level subjects and working towards best grades they can achieve in all subjects, as safety net. This same safety net mindset will still prevail with the new L1R4 system.

I agree that stress may not reduce, at least for the more competitive students/parents. Stress is to a large extent self-induced. But those who are willing to let go a bit should find it less stressful.

What caught my eye in the ST article I read this morning was the statistic that only 27% of O level students went to JC, while 43% went to poly. I recall that it was intended that about a third would go to JC and another third to poly - at least that is what I remember from some years ago. My concern is that poly education is more applied and hands-on (which is good for many), but does it mean that fewer students are reading widely, thinking deeply, and getting practice in writing well, more extensively, and investigating issues more rigorously? And universities are leaning that way too. What does that say for the future of thought and discourse in Singapore?

I share the same concerns. No wonder adult literacy is declining in Singapore - the language acquisition and practice is insufficient during the schooling years as fewer students are putting themselves through the rigour of reading widely, thinking deeply and critically and getting practice in writing well.

This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I actually see a lot of value in taking more subjects at the secondary school level, than fewer subjects. Given that you already take few subjects and specialise at the post secondary stage, I feel wide exposure is needed at the secondary school level so as to build broad based competencies and intelligences across different subjects, before making a decision.

My fear with L1R4 is that more and more secondary schools will teach to meet the requirements of the exams, and fewer schools will give students the option to read 8 or 9 subjects, which in itself, is valuable to me if the child is keen on doing so. (The option to do 5-7 subjects will be prevalent in the new system.) Now it seems like to be able to do 8-10 subjects, the PSLE becomes all the more important, because it is the IP kids who will have these opportunities. In other words, I think it’s also a good stage to build a capacity to learn. Already, our PSLE and post secondary school education are fairly narrow so I would prefer a broader exposure at secondary school level.

[zac's mum]

@doodbug Worthwhile to note that Poly L1R4 is not fully identical to JC L1R4. Eg non-Humanities Poly courses do not require a Humanities to be counted in the L1R2B2.

I do agree that it is good for our society to uphold/train critical thinking skills & broader general knowledge of current affairs; literacy and essay-writing abilities (which are imparted by Humanities and GP subjects). How about more rewards for Arts-inclined students to send a signal huh LOL.

[SG_KP1]

@doodbug said in New L1R4 system for JC entry:

I share the same concerns. No wonder adult literacy is declining in Singapore - the language acquisition and practice is insufficient during the schooling years as fewer students are putting themselves through the rigour of reading widely, thinking deeply and critically and getting practice in writing well.

This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I actually see a lot of value in taking more subjects at the secondary school level, than fewer subjects. Given that you already take few subjects and specialise at the post secondary stage, I feel wide exposure is needed at the secondary school level so as to build broad based competencies and intelligences across different subjects, before making a decision.

My fear with L1R4 is that more and more secondary schools will teach to meet the requirements of the exams, and fewer schools will give students the option to read 8 or 9 subjects, which in itself, is valuable to me if the child is keen on doing so. (The option to do 5-7 subjects will be prevalent in the new system.) Now it seems like to be able to do 8-10 subjects, the PSLE becomes all the more important, because it is the IP kids who will have these opportunities. In other words, I think it’s also a good stage to build a capacity to learn. Already, our PSLE and post secondary school education are fairly narrow so I would prefer a broader exposure at secondary school level.

I also think a wide range of subjects at the upper secondary level is beneficial (of course, some get pushed into taking too many as well) and many kids don’t read/write enough (generally speaking). Two full humanities (beyond SS or whatever it’s called) is underrated, and I think the 3x Science should still take one full humanities subject.

I’m not sure how many schools allow 10 subjects these days. Some schools are even placing restrictions on the ninth subject, unless it is L3, Higher Art/Music, or some special programme. I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, doing stuff beyond academics is good or finding something you are really interested in is great (specific subject/activity). On the other hand, many kids don’t know what they want to do yet and sometimes you don’t know until you try.

In the end, people can certainly decide to chill out a bit more. Reducing the load will likely mean more balloting or competing on other metrics. In some sense, when getting X is partly luck, people may place less importance on it (or know there was some component of luck). On the other hand, there is still a limited number of spaces for certain sought after things and at the aggregate level it is unlikely people will quit doing all they can to try and get what they want. If you look abroad, you can basically see what happens when changes like this are made.

[bbbay]

The view of taking more subjects are good, may be “the piling on what MOE removes or reduces” warning that the minster is saying?

[SG_KP1]

@bbbay
Many people are capable of managing the load.

As someone else said, the majority of the stress is self-induced and doesn’t come from the number of subjects. It largely comes from the fact that everyone wants the same thing and not everyone can get in.

We can reduce the number of subjects to 1 or just give everyone a pass in everything / equal standing. People will still have to ballot (or compete on some other metric) and will be stressed out.

Don’t believe me? Just look at the P1 registration system. It has nothing to do with exam results, yet there are countless stories about how “stressed” people were. Of course, some people don’t really care and just send their kid(s) to the nearest school, but that doesn’t hold across the board.

The argument is not to take a never ending number of subjects. The question is whether reduced breadth is actually good and/or will students/parents/schools just game the new system, which reduces what kids are actually exposed to or learn.

The overall issue that has never been fixed is demand > supply. Just look at the AL system; it’s perfectly fine (I’m not clinging to the old system) but nothing has really changed.