JC Humanities Prgram - RI, HCI or ACSI ?

[Zann]

verykiasu2010:

Chenonceau


good summary !

it is a sign of the time when PPE is introduced at junior high / lower sec

Thanks Chenonceau for sharing ... and advice!

H Vk2010, what is PPE ?

[verykiasu2010]

Zann:

verykiasu2010:

Chenonceau


good summary !

it is a sign of the time when PPE is introduced at junior high / lower sec

Thanks Chenonceau for sharing ... and advice!

H Vk2010, what is PPE ?

Philosophy, Politics & Econs

[micko07]

verykiasu2010:

Philosophy, Politics & Econs

Just to add - It's most famously offered by Oxford (although there are other universities like Warwick too) and has a reputation for being the breeding ground of politicians.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11136511

As a graduate from Hwa Chong HP, I don't think I'm in any position to comment which school is the \"best\". My opinion is that getting into HP alone will not guarantee you academic success - it takes hard work and effort on your own part to do well. Frankly speaking, between RJ and HCI HPs, I would say there's little difference regarding your chances for scholarships and top universities. I'm not too familiar with ACSI, and since they run the IB instead of A levels, it's a little like comparing apples to oranges. As far as I know however, ACSI is also excellent.

I'm not familiar with RJ's selection criteria for HP. However, for HCI, IP students are ranked based on recommendations from your secondary school teachers + grades. The tutors do have some discretion in picking students who were not ranked as highly, though I think they normally choose the top 16 or so? For O level track students, they had an interview with the head tutor. In my batch, there were 56 of us. It's not exactly \"easy\" to get in per se.

I second Chenonceau's comments on the difference in mindset regarding Arts vs Science. In Arts, there's rarely an absolutely \"correct\" or \"wrong\" answer (that varies depending on subject though, Geography would have more definite answers than Literature, for example). Consequently, it depends on how you approach a problem and more importantly, how you convey and argue your views. That's why having a strong command of English is really important. (Same thing if you're taking subjects like 3rd Lang or CLL).

Being in HP also has certain perks, like smaller classes, more individual attention from the tutors, having little homework (and hence more free time to spend as you deem fit), getting to go home earlier, your own classrooms (for HCI) etc. You do have to enjoy Humanities if you want to pursue HP though, otherwise it'd just be really painful when you're trawling through piles of notes. IMO, HP taught me to think more deeply about everything. HP students also tend to be very driven, which helped to keep me motivated. My classmates were incredibly helpful though - so it was friendly competition, not the cut-throat kind!

OP, if you'd like to know more about HCI HP, feel free to PM me

[Chenonceau]

micko07:

I second Chenonceau's comments on the difference in mindset regarding Arts vs Science. In Arts, there's rarely an absolutely \"correct\" or \"wrong\" answer (that varies depending on subject though, Geography would have more definite answers than Literature, for example). Consequently, it depends on how you approach a problem and more importantly, how you convey and argue your views. That's why having a strong command of English is really important. (Same thing if you're taking subjects like 3rd Lang or CLL).

In university however, when students become familiar with the latest empirical research... and especially in PhD... there are right and wrong answers. Argumentation becomes a baseline. It is important to weave in empirical findings. Some things are \"fact\". For example, Hatshepsut was fat... a fact revealed by the examination of her mummy.

It does not all depend on how you argue. There is a body of empirical findings to account for that limits how far students can get away with mere argumentation. Argumentation is a foundational skill. Other humanities skills need to layer upon that, and these others become MUCH important in university... skills in testing theory, evaluating findings... etc...

I would not say that there are no right nor wrong. Because there are. You can't say Hatshepsut was skinny. I would say that the social sciences are challenging in that the social realities shift and there are so many variables it becomes impossible to predict exactly.

Do 100% of men marry women? The prediction cannot cover 100% of marriages. There are other variables that shift the sands... such that as social scientists, we only dare to say \"Most men marry women\".

I had a discussion with some wafer fab engineers one day who were trying to explain to me the complexity of their jobs in a wafer fab plant. Only after I showed them MY data, did they acknowledge that the what I deal with as a psychologist is more complex by far than what they experience. It is THIS complexity that makes it difficult to say \"right\" and \"wrong\". However, there IS STILL right and wrong because if I don't account for enough variables (at least the important ones) and I recommend the WRONG intervention, turnover rate shoots straight up within 6 months.

It is complex.

[micko07]

Chenonceau:

In university however, when students become familiar with the latest empirical research... and especially in PhD... there are right and wrong answers. Argumentation becomes a baseline. It is important to weave in empirical findings. Some things are \"fact\". For example, Hatshepsut was fat... a fact revealed by the examination of her mummy.

It does not all depend on how you argue. There is a body of empirical findings to account for that limits how far students can get away with mere argumentation. Argumentation is a foundational skill. Other humanities skills need to layer upon that, and these others become MUCH important in university... skills in testing theory, evaluating findings... etc...

I would not say that there are no right nor wrong. Because there are. You can't say Hatshepsut was skinny. I would say that the social sciences are challenging in that the social realities shift and there are so many variables it becomes impossible to predict exactly.

Do 100% of men marry women? The prediction cannot cover 100% of marriages. There are other variables that shift the sands... such that as social scientists, we only dare to say \"Most men marry women\".

I had a discussion with some wafer fab engineers one day who were trying to explain to me the complexity of their jobs in a wafer fab plant. Only after I showed them MY data, did they acknowledge that the what I deal with as a psychologist is more complex by far than what they experience. It is THIS complexity that makes it difficult to say \"right\" and \"wrong\". However, there IS STILL right and wrong because if I don't account for enough variables (at least the important ones) and I recommend the WRONG intervention, turnover rate shoots straight up within 6 months.

It is complex.

Yes, there are some things which are certainly definite. Granite is an igneous rock, for example. No amount of argument would overturn that because it is fact, backed up by empirical observation. It's as fact as much as Hatshepsut was fat.

Some things are much more difficult to argue concretely though. Say Literature, Music or Art, two people can have very different reactions and interpretations of the exact same thing. Is there \"empirical\" evidence though? To some extent yes, perhaps in terms of the artiste's intents, the language used? Apart from that, it's very much a personal interpretation, of course with some practical constraints. There is definitely some room for deviation in views in such cases.

It really depends on what is the issue in question. Should we ban abortion? Should 377A be abolished? Should same-sex marriage be allowed? Should suicide be criminalized? Should we abolish the death penalty? Is Singapore too focused on economic growth? You could find evidence supporting both the proposition and opposition. I don't have a definite answer which is 100% correct to such questions, and I honestly don't believe that there is one either. What I do have, is simply an informed opinion based on empirical facts and research. There isn't always a definite answer, just a solution that's probably the best of the lot. And even that is subjective - what is \"best\" course of action to someone may not be the \"best\" for someone else.

But yes definitely, it IS complex!

[Chenonceau]

micko07:

Say Literature, Music or Art, two people can have very different reactions and interpretations of the exact same thing. Is there \"empirical\" evidence though?

Some would argue that there is a right (or wrong) interpretation to the extent that the interpretation is tuned into the particular mindset of the audience... and that socio-psychological realities (which shift across time and space) define the fit between literary/music/art interpretation and audience reception. You play a piece for you... or for your audience, it is right if there is a good fit between interpretation and audience reception. Hence, to appreciate the great painters and musicians, it is necessary to understand the life and times in which they evolved... or else, one finds in the self a natural affinity for the life and times during which the art was created. I have often wondered why I am drawn to the paintings by Toulouse de Lautrec. Perhaps it is the Bohemian in me.

Same with literature. Authors that were universally abhorred at time of publishing have come down to us as classics because their work contained truths that are still relevant today, but were rejected by the puritanical tone of the day. Think Emily Brontë. Their works began by being incorrect but ended by being right. There were other authors who were acclaimed in their day but we no longer know them because the works no longer speak to our hearts.

But I do agree with you that Truth is more elusive where it concerns Literature and Art. Still, that has not stopped people from trying to pin down the proportions of beauty using the Fibonacci mathematical series.

But here... I confess I venture into areas of some conjecture. I know little of Literature, Art and Music, being not so much an Arts person as I am a social scientist. I am more comfortable with positivist truths than I am with interpretivist truths... and in as far as social sciences are concerned, there are right responses/interventions or wrong depending on the configuration of variables at hand.

As to whether death penalty is correct etc... I do think there is a right answer (but one designed for a particular place and a particular time within a particular community). One needs to examine the features of the place and time and community and then formulate policy. There is no universal right answer but there is an answer that fits the situation and it is that we must try to find.

Too often, people think that the choice for or against abortion is a question of personal values. For a policymaker, it is more than that. There is data that can be studied to guide policy, and it is to admit defeat if one were to say \"There is no right or wrong\" because if there were no right no wrong, why bother to get things right so that people can live good lives? Policy would just be the whim of some unknown bureaucrat with a gift of writing. Maybe we have so many policy faux-pas lately because our JCs have churned out Humanities students who actually do believe that there is no right or wrong and all is a matter of argumentation.

In JC one is taught there is no right or wrong because the focus is on imparting argumentative skills... and one therefore argues around some few facts (enough to practise argumentation with) In real life, one cannot afford to think that way because the wrong analysis leads to the wrong conclusion leads to the wrong policy... and then many people are unhappy.

It's just like people saying there is nor right or wrong way of parenting. I would tend to think there is a correct or wrong response to a child (i.e., parenting) but it depends on myriad factors that shift from family to family, and even day to day, event to event. What works here may not work there, but there is something that works, which is right for the situation.

That is why it is complex. It is complex insofar as one strives to be right. If there is no right nor wrong, all becomes simple. There is no right nor wrong so who cares. Yet, the nation spends so much money grooming Humanities students. Why if it serve no practical purpose? Parents strive to do the elusive right thing because their kids matter. Governments try to formulate the right policy because the populace matters. It isn't all about argumentation. Elusive though the right answer may be, it is there and it is the nation's hope that those well schooled in the humanities help to match the right thing to the time and space they will contribute to.

When a Humanities student reaches very high levels of competence, there comes a realization that there must be a precision and a rigour which approaches that of the hard sciences. The Humanities Programme at JC is only the beginning of training in Humanities skills. Indeed, in some universities, the journey has only begun after 3 years of university education. Humanities training is lifelong. There was a time where I too believed there was no right nor wrong.

I once coached a CEO in writing and delivering speeches. By the time I was through, HE was the one who commented that if he hadn't been trained as an engineer, he probably wouldn't have caught on so fast, and soon he was showing me his speeches and writing them out as equations first ... I am not sure if he was right because that was the one and only time I helped someone with his speeches. Maybe it's just him.

More recently, I had 2 months to turn my foster daughter's (a PRC scholar H3 Physics) GP essay grades around from a Fail grade. She was gonna sit her 'A's and was desperate.. and close to tears. At the end of 6 hours with me, she looked at me eyes shining saying... \"No one has ever explained to me that GP can be approached in such a systematic and rigorous manner\". The truth is, many who teach GP cannot articulate the science behind the art, and many just grope along with their students. The Foster Daughter's next essay came back with a B.

And another thought... music? There is technical mastery (gotta get that right)... and then that bit of interpretation that either sings to a chord in the audience, or not.

[laissezfaire]

There is little to choose between the Hwa Chong program and the RJC program. There is somewhat of an assumption that Hwa Chong’s is superior but the teachers in each place have different strengths and weaknesses, and I would be fine with sending a child to either one.


To the contrary of what an earlier poster mentioned, RJC’s program is not more selective. In fact, both schools have been admitting more students into their humanities program each year, and the general quality of the cohort is going down rather than up due to their lack of selectiveness. There are always a few outstanding ones each year, but there is an increasing tendency to mistake eloquence with intelligence.

Which brings me to ACS I ha ha…I wouldn’t touch their HP with a 10 foot barge pole. Let’s just say that the teachers teaching the program have poor disciplinary knowledge, sound much better than they are, and know enough to bluff their way through most students who don’t know any better. There are some students however who can see through the BS and are already complaining about the teachers whose idea of research is Wikipedia (that’s where they get most of their technical definitions from).

[jtoh]

Laissezfaire, is the ACSI humanities program part of their IB programme?

[WeiHan]

Regarding the above arguments about whether certain topics in humanities have right/wrong answers, maybe you would like to consider why has slavery become totally unacceptable while not too long ago, there are arguments for it. Cross racial marriage? In my opinion, all arguments can be traced back to the more basic fundamental principle that you based on. We can then debate on the relative merit of each fundamental principles based on empirical evidences. I tend to think there are right/wrong answers.

[laissezfaire]

jtoh:

Laissezfaire, is the ACSI humanities program part of their IB programme?

Jtoh, yes it is. The HP class essentially is a HL English class but they have their own texts, and do not do the same texts as HL classes. This is so to justify funding as well as the scholarships blah blah...

They sit for the same HL paper at the IB exam, but they use their own texts to answer the questions. These texts are selections from the IB prescribed text lists anyway, they are not a random selection.