Compare RGS vs NYGH
-
If you looked at the GCE A Levels results analysis published by the JCs shortly after the results were known, you will realise that each JC usually highlights their "outstanding" indices ONLY. For example, a JC would announce "x out of 10 students scored distinction in H2 Biology" and so on and so forth for all of the subjects that the JC does well in. And the JC would "conveniently" omit the results of the not-so-sterling subjects.
I do wish that there is a "standard" table which the JCs are required to fill in and published together; I would be entirely satisfied with percentages and have no need for actual numbers.
Such a standard table would be indeed useful for parents deciding between 2 JCs. Simply put, if my child is going to take Biology, HCI would be a better choice (fortunately, this comparison was available).
What about KI?
HCI stated that 93.3% of their KI students achieved a distinction; how did RI do? RI was completely silent on this! Can I conclude therefore RI didn’t do as well as HCI?
If you looked at the detailed analysis of 2009 GCE A levels results published by the JCs, you will realise that every JC is guilty of highlighting the "better" results and omit the not so spectacular ones. -
To ensure 100% passes, JC’s will not allow those that they think would fail to sit for the A level. So 100% passes is also a non-indicator.
-
atutor2001:
To ensure 100% passes, JC's will not allow those that they think would fail to sit for the A level. So 100% passes is also a non-indicator.
I am looking at the number of distinctions achieved, by subject and by students; I agree that percentage of passes is not a good indicator. At most of the top colleges, the percentage of passes is very close to 100%, if it's not 100%
-
A-level/IB are the culmination of the entire schooling years as these are the most important advance placement examnations for entry to unis.
For A-level, i prefer to measure a jc’s performance using the commonly used yardstick-3H2 and IHI distinctions. This must be used in correlation with a jc cop for 0-level. The next best indicator is the percentage of students successfully admitted to our unis. -
atutor2001:
To ensure 100% passes, JC's will not allow those that they think would fail to sit for the A level. So 100% passes is also a non-indicator.
Anyway, scoring distinction is so much easier nowaday that looking at the percentage passes is no longer meaningful.
I remember once upon a time, people measure the standard by percentage passes, then they switch to number of students scoring 3 and 4 A or B. Then, it was changed to percentage scoring 3 and 4 distictions. Then, it was changed to percentage scoring 4 distinctions and perfect scores. Then, they discover that it is not sufficient, so they changed to percentage scoring 7 distictions. -
On the basis of the latest A-level results, the performance of our junior colleges can be summarised into 6 groups namely:
Top tier(A) - HCI, RI
Top tier(B) - NJC,VJC TJC,DHS
Top 2nd tier - ACJC,AJC, MJC
2nd tier - CJC,NYJC,SAJC
3rd tier - JJC,PJC,TPJC IJC,SRJC
4th tier - MI -
IMO, the following indices will allow students and parents to make an informed decision:
(a) percentage of distinctions by subject - this yardstick is an indication how well the subject is taught in the JC
(b) percentage of students scoring 6 thu 9 distinctions; the higher the percentage means a better chance for a student to do well
percentage of students achieving the perfect UAS score of 90 (University Admission Score; applicable to admission into the local universities) -
kiasuest2:
For (a) can actually include quality passes A and B grades vs cohort just like what many schools measure their performances in PSLE ie A* and A vs national.IMO, the following indices will allow students and parents to make an informed decision:
(a) percentage of distinctions by subject - this yardstick is an indication how well the subject is taught in the JC
(b) percentage of students scoring 6 thu 9 distinctions; the higher the percentage means a better chance for a student to do well
(c) percentage of students achieving the perfect UAS score of 90 (University Admission Score; applicable to admission into the local universities)
JCs must also compare its latest performances vs past performances. Example: A jc which boasts of high quality passes of 80% vs 83%(preceeding yr) is not performing as well as another jc that jumped from 55% to 70%.
Of course all comparisons hve to be meaningful. -
The big problem that nobody has addressed satisfactorily is how to measure the performance of the institution as opposed to the performance of the students. One rather crude way is the statistical method used by MOE: measure intake characteristics and output statistics of each student and call the difference ‘value-added’.
In the present state of the system, up to 50% of the grades are supported by tuition from private tutors. There are also ‘market failure’ situations like DSA/IP tracks. What we are measuring therefore also includes 1) the extent to which private tuition is helping, 2) the extent to which students are able to cope with examination methodology (as opposed to learning), and 3) the extent to which a JC is able to select (via JC-centred measures like DSA/IP) a cohort that plays to its areas of strength.
That is all, of course, in addition to the baseline efforts of students and teachers. -
kiasuest2:
I think you need search for the facts before writing. RI publish their 'A' Level results in details on their annual reports. They have even let the public know how many students score A or B.. You can get the reports at http://www.ri.edu.sg/bookshelf/2010_Institution_Report_Section1_web.swfIf you looked at the GCE A Levels results analysis published by the JCs shortly after the results were known, you will realise that each JC usually highlights their \"outstanding\" indices ONLY. For example, a JC would announce \"x out of 10 students scored distinction in H2 Biology\" and so on and so forth for all of the subjects that the JC does well in. And the JC would \"conveniently\" omit the results of the not-so-sterling subjects.
I do wish that there is a \"standard\" table which the JCs are required to fill in and published together; I would be entirely satisfied with percentages and have no need for actual numbers.
Such a standard table would be indeed useful for parents deciding between 2 JCs. Simply put, if my child is going to take Biology, HCI would be a better choice (fortunately, this comparison was available).
What about KI?
HCI stated that 93.3% of their KI students achieved a distinction; how did RI do? RI was completely silent on this! Can I conclude therefore RI didn't do as well as HCI?
If you looked at the detailed analysis of 2009 GCE A levels results published by the JCs, you will realise that every JC is guilty of highlighting the \"better\" results and omit the not so spectacular ones.
I hope it helps. Please do let us know if we can find such detail reports for HCI or other JC.
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
