Anglo-Chinese School (Independent)

[Muffins]

hi tiger262, take it from me, in ACS(I) as well, you will take up to about 11.00 to clear homework. There are 8 subjects alone, of which usually give homework everytime they see you for their periods, so there's not much difference there...

[autolycus]

Muffins:

hi tiger262, take it from me, in ACS(I) as well, you will take up to about 11.00 to clear homework. There are 8 subjects alone, of which usually give homework everytime they see you for their periods, so there's not much difference there...

tiger262, it depends on which teachers your son will get. There is a homework minimum determined by the Dean of the subject department. For physical sciences and life sciences, homework can generally be cleared in school by a student who is quick to realise where the homework is coming from. For mathematics, it will be a grind (generally speaking). The English department is highly variable. Humanities (Geog, History) are tolerable, and Art is largely executed during school hours.

Three hours a day ought to be more than enough. The main burden will be the heavy CCA load (at least one UYO, possibly a competition-level sport). That can make a person feel even less inclined to do homework.

Bottom line though is personal responsibility. Keep your son away from extensive (or intensive) gaming, and life will be better (although your son might not agree).

[tiger262]

Thanks to both of you - Muffins and autolycus.


Your replies were prompt and quite informative. I got a clear idea of what my DS should do to survive and thrive in ACS(I).

Frankly, my inclination towards ACS(I) is mainly because I find IB to be a more balanced Pre-Uni education than A-levels. RI may have many plus points but the IP program at RI leads to A-levels unlike at ACS(I) where it leads to IB.

I know that this debate - IB vs A-level - is a very worn out topic. Nevertheless, since you have exposure to ACS (I), I will value your comments much more. Please feel free to chip in with your views, when time permits.

Thanks again for your replies.

[autolycus]

tiger262:

I know that this debate - IB vs A-level - is a very worn out topic. Nevertheless, since you have exposure to ACS (I), I will value your comments much more. Please feel free to chip in with your views, when time permits.

You're very welcome. Integrated Programmes are my area of research anyway.

There's a paper about 2 years old that you can download from http://nk11r10-homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/FileSharing.woa/wa/2007TSLNIBDPFInal.pdf.pdf-zip.zip?a=downloadFile&user=brythain&path=/Public/2007TSLNIBDPFInal.pdf. It's PDF, about 300+ Kb when downloaded. Enjoy.

[tiger262]

autolycus:

You're very welcome. Integrated Programmes are my area of research anyway.


There's a paper about 2 years old that you can download from http://nk11r10-homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/FileSharing.woa/wa/2007TSLNIBDPFInal.pdf.pdf-zip.zip?a=downloadFile&user=brythain&path=/Public/2007TSLNIBDPFInal.pdf. It's PDF, about 300+ Kb when downloaded. Enjoy.

Thank you very much. I downloaded the report and finished reading it in one go. The author, Alistair Chew, has given a very balanced perspective of the issue. Quite informative. My inclination towards IB has got further strengthened after reading that report.

Thanks and Regards.

[Piggy Lim]

Hi

I understand that if the boys do well in year two in ACS(I) they will be able to get in IB from year three.
What about boys from ACS (Baker) will they be able to be given the opportunity to get into IB to ACS(I) if they do well in year two?
Thanks v much in advance for the reply.

[autolycus]

Piggy Lim:

Hi

I understand that if the boys do well in year two in ACS(I) they will be able to get in IB from year three.
What about boys from ACS (Baker) will they be able to be given the opportunity to get into IB to ACS(I) if they do well in year two?
Thanks v much in advance for the reply.

The IB programme is actually a two-year course in Years 5 and 6, equivalent roughly to a two-year JC A-level course.

ACS(I) has three main intake points at the start of Year 1 (from PSLE/DSA), Year 3 (mostly foreign scholars), and Year 5 (from O-level/DSA etc, for the IB Diploma Programme). They also used to run entrance examinations for entry to Years 1, 2 and 3, but those tended to have a large candidature and very few qualifiers.

Secondary-level boys from ACS(Barker), unlike the primary-level boys from ACS(P) and ACS(J), have no special formal relationship with ACS(I) as far as admission is concerned. If they want to get in, they have to apply and be considered on a case by case basis just like anybody else. However, it is possible for them to be transferred under special circumstances.

If they are transferred in for Year 3, they have to do well in whatever track they are placed in (IP or O-level) and they then will stand an excellent chance of ending up in the Year 5 cohort for the IBDP two years later.

[Kiasu Friend]

autolycus:

ACS(I) has three main intake points at the start of Year 1 (from PSLE/DSA), Year 3 (mostly foreign scholars), and Year 5 (from O-level/DSA etc, for the IB Diploma Programme)........

Hi autolycus,

Thanks for the detailed info. But this raises a few interesting questions in my mind. If possible, please clarify the following points:

(1) Do the students joining in Year 3 or Year 5 suffer at least a slight disadvantage when compared to those joining ACS(I) IP program in Year 1 itself?

(2) If they do not suffer any disadvantage, then what is the benefit in joining in Year-1 of IP program at ACS(I)? In other words, do Year-1 and 2 of the IP program at ACS (I) have any relevance to IB curriculum or these first two years of the IP program are just like Sec-1 and Sec-2 elsewhere?

In summary my question is: \"ACS(I) rightly claims that theirs is a 6-year IP program leading to IBDP. But in what specific ways the Year-1 and Year-2 contribute in preparing the students for the eventual IBDP if one can join in Year-3 or Year-5 at their own convenience?\"

I am sorry to take your time. But since you have more data on this topic, I thought you could share your views.

Thank you very much.

[autolycus]

Kiasu Friend:

(1) Do the students joining in Year 3 or Year 5 suffer at least a slight disadvantage when compared to those joining ACS(I) IP program in Year 1 itself?


(2) If they do not suffer any disadvantage, then what is the benefit in joining in Year-1 of IP program at ACS(I)? In other words, do Year-1 and 2 of the IP program at ACS (I) have any relevance to IB curriculum or these first two years of the IP program are just like Sec-1 and Sec-2 elsewhere?

In summary my question is: \"ACS(I) rightly claims that theirs is a 6-year IP program leading to IBDP. But in what specific ways the Year-1 and Year-2 contribute in preparing the students for the eventual IBDP if one can join in Year-3 or Year-5 at their own convenience?\"

Hi there. Those are very good questions, and answering them is tricky. But I will try.

1. In theory, the students joining later should have be at a disadvantage. However, most of those joining later are scholars (Year 3 entry) or selected by having very good O-level or DSA scores (Year 5 entry). Some have pointed out that late entry at Year 5 is mostly female, and yes, female students have a high average performance level.

2. The data therefore show that on average there is no disadvantage to late joiners. But whether this is due to the programme not really differentiating or whether this is due to the high quality of the late joiners has not been established yet. In most IP schools, research shows that late joiners tend to do better — however, the bar to entry is also set much higher for late entry.

3. The main advantage to joining early seems to be that a student joining early will get into the flow earlier. The ACS(I) IP was originally crafted to develop skill sets that were necessary for the IB Diploma Programme. But not having those skill sets at a high level is obviously not an obstacle to doing well, if the student is highly motivated.

My personal (I stress 'personal') opinion is that the ACS(I) IP's original specifications would have been sufficiently rigorous to create a barrier that would have resulted in early entry being an outstanding advantage. The specifications have been reduced, so it is now no longer such a barrier.

I hope that answers your questions. There's an article I linked to in a post responding to tiger262 above that may be useful (especially towards the end). Cheers!

[Kiasu Friend]

Hi autolycus,


Thank you very much for your detailed replies. Answering my questions might have been tricky but you have done full justice to them.

If it is true that ACS(I) has diluted the rigour of the curriculum in Year-1 and Year-2 to help late entrants, then I would consider it most unfortunate. Because, making it easy enough to enter in Year-3 and Year-5 in fact reduces the stature of the IB program itself. It adds credence to the prevailing view (incorrect view, I would say) that IB is not as rigourous as A-level.

I wish that ACS(I) restores the rigour to the original specifications and thus establish IB as a course no less in rigour to A-level. If it means raising the barriers to late-entrants, by all means let them do it. Because, among the late-entrants, those who are really motivated and capable will get over the entry-barrier anyway. But by restoring the rigour, the stature of IB will be protected. This is my personal view.