Cedar VS St Nicholas

[phtthp]

exact location (road name) where they intend to build this new campus is still held confidential by MOE.

[phtthp]

when the 2 sisters school go IP in 2013, would be curious to find out:-


will both SCGS and St Nick have the same COP for IP stream, or different (based on demand)?

if different, which one easier to enter IP (lower COP) ?
so far, this is the first unique case in history where 2 girls’ school combine together for a common IP path.

next yr 2012 psle happen to be the year of P6 cohort, born in the popular zodiac auspicious year of the Dragon (ie. born in 2000). Many powerful Dragon boys & Phoneix girls will emerge …

[phtthp]

COP for Cedar IP 2012 is ... 258


http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=29631

[Sotongmummy]

anyone know what is St Nic’s cut-off point this year?

[smag]

St Nic’s COP 246

[Rich dad poor dad]

phtthp:

exact location (road name) where they intend to build this new campus is still held confidential by MOE.

I saw a new school construction near to Buangkok MRT next to the mosque..could be...anyone know what school is that?

[phtthp]

another thread say COP for St Nick is 249

http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=29763&start=80

COP for Cedar IP is 258
http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=7176&start=400

[CupNoodle]

phtthp,


Thanks for your reply in this thread.
After reading, we changed our choice from Cedar to CHIJ after much consideration.
Just to let you know that your reply has made a difference to our choice.

DD has been posted to CHIJ St Nicholas and was being offered the MEP. She is very excited about it : )

Does anyone here has kids in MEP. Is it good? Shall we accept the offer?
Appreciate any feedback.

TIA

[yummymummy30]

twilight:

There are certain critical differences between SNGS and Cedar O levels. Cedar focuses a lot on L1R5 and therefore, most students only take 8 subjects, or at most 9 with 3rd language, which is why it is quite unlikely to produce the top scorer for O levels, but its mean L1R5, which shows the general performance of the whole cohort, was 2nd for 2010 O levels, after SCGS. I'm not sure what the ranking of SNGS is. However in SNGS, even triple science students take two humanities so the majority of the students will take 9 subjects. With 3rd language, some can have up to 10 subjects and usually the top scorer for O levels will have 10 A1. But with the change in syllabus and SS becoming a pure subject, I'm not sure how all these would change. I still highly believe Cedar will continue to focus on L1R5, their best 6 subjects instead of taking as many subjects as possible, unless MOE implements some other rules regarding subject combination.


Both schools are good schools though. So ask your dd which school culture and atmosphere she prefers, if she attended the open house. Otherwise, you can consider distance as well. A long commute to school on a daily basis can be quite tiring.

I find the data above unbelievable.

A simple googling of the annual O level top scorers will show that Cedar’s performances is far below those of SNGS and SCGS. Nothing to do with how many subjects majority of the students take.

Just take a look at this. http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20100111-190988.html

Besides producing THE TOP scorer of 10 A1s for 3 years running, SNGS also produced the HIGHEST NUMBER of 9A1s among all the rest of the schools anyway (SCGS only produced 2 who got 9A1, and MGS only produced 3, which is a very big gap from St Nicks' 13). This clearly proves your theory of Cedar students taking fewer subjects than SNGS wrong. Even with 8 or 9 subjects, Cedar failed to produce any top scorers and as we can see clearly from MOE provided data, Cedar performance is even worse than schools like Anderson and Crescent Girls.

SNGS not only produced the top scorer 3 years running (10A1s), it also has the strongest showing of top scorers all round (the other students). So your theory that the 3 SNGS top scorers were recruited MOE students from overseas is instantly debunked.

Additionally, the results speak for themselves. The fact that Cedar's students take fewer subjects points to academic inaptitude relative to SNGS. The fact that majority of SNGS students can handle more subjects, close to 10 for the top classes and 9 for most classes is proof of superior academic strength, similar to how RI, RGS and Chinese High were like before these 3 schools adopted the through-train. All this is just simple logic.

Among all the schools announced to take on the IP, Cedar and VS were the 2 that stood out to be the least deserving and most academically weak and did not deserve to have the IP programme. All my friends who are parents made the same remarks, other than those who were formerly from Cedar themselves.

I’d say Cedar’s standard is currently in the same league as schools like TKGS and even lower than Crescent.

Even before this whole IP thing back in the early to mid 2000s, SNGS's ranking was way ahead of schools like Cedar or Crescent, who never made the top 10 back then. Back in those days we all remember SNGS sent way more students to the top 2 JCs, and though much less so than RI, RGS and Chinese High, some of their top students bagged top overseas scholarships after A level. Not so for schools like Cedar or VS, which never figured at all in that league. The top 6 that did not take in any affiliate students constantly occupied the top 6. St Nicks and then SCGS followed suit and then followed by ACS Independent who did not take in any affiliated students but still fared worse than SNGS and SCGS back then. Cedar, Crescent, TKGS did not take in any affiliated students and yet never made it to top 10. As for VS, I didn't even know of VS's existence, until I started work.

phtthp:

another thread say COP for St Nick is 249
http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=29763&start=80

COP for Cedar IP is 258
http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=7176&start=400

The two points above are comparing apples to oranges cos one is not IP score, the other is IP score.

[twilight]

Annual top scorers would have 9A1 or 10A1. How is it possible for a student who only takes 8 subjects to attain 9A1? The 9A1 is without MT. Even though a student with 8 subjects could have scored A1 for all of them, there is no chance he/she would be on the top scorer list, albeit it is a straight A1 achievement. On the other hand, a student with 10 subjects, but who scored perhaps 9A1 and 1B3, can still be on the top scorer list because he/she has 9A1.


I do still think that the number of students taking x subjects matters. Let's say the cohort size is 300. In SNGS, many would be taking 9 subjects with a few taking 10 subjects, and perhaps some others taking less than 9. So let there be 150 students taking 9 subjects or more. The chances of students getting onto the top student list would be 150/300, which is 50%. In Cedar, few would be taking 9 subjects, and even fewer with 10. So let there be 50 students taking 9 subjects or more. The chances would be 50/300, or 16.7%. Simple math would show that the number of people taking 9 or more subjects does correlate (be it a lot or a little; I can't tell for sure) with chances of having students in the top scorer list.

If you want to judge a school's performance based on the number of students who attained 9A1 or 10A1, so be it; it's your choice since MOE doesn't officially publish the mean L1B5 of each school, nor does it publish an official ranking of each school.

The top scorer for the past 3 years have indeed been Malaysians.
http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/sgseen/what_bugs_me/531444/foreigners_shine_in_olevels_spore_students_time_to_wake_up.html
\"This year, our top O-level scorer hails from Malaysia -- and nearly half of the 40 students who bagged nine or more A1s are also foreigners.\"
\"This year, Chia Pei Yun, who hails from Selangor, Malaysia, bagged the top spot with 11 A1s. The two before her also hail from Malaysia.\"
If these 2 are not enough to prove that they're Malaysians, you can continue googling. Whether Malaysia or Singapore's newspapers, they all report that the 3 have been Malaysians. Also, as Malaysians' names do not sound foreign, we do not know how many on the list are Malaysians or Singaporeans.
\"In 2007, half of the 25 O-level top scorers were from China, Malaysia and Korea.\"

Taking fewer subjects equate to academic inaptitude? This statement is kind of absurd. It is not the students' choice to choose whether they would like to take 8 or 9 or 10 subjects. The school has the most say in it. If Cedar only wants majority of their students to take 8 subjects, it's the school's business. I have no idea of the rationale behind this, but it has been so for years. There have been triple science students requesting to do 2 humanities, but their requests were promptly slammed down. Does this show academic inaptitude when the student hasn't even been given the opportunity to show their competence in another subject? I think it's unfair for the students to be judged on their academic aptitude based on their subject combination, withot taking into account other factors. If SNGS wants their triple science students to have 2 humanities, it is again their call.

If you want to rank Cedar together with TKGS, so be it. TKGS is a band 2 school while Cedar is a band 1 school. But I suppose the banding exercise means nothing to you as it is not a criteria by which you judge a school's standard.

SNGS was ranked 7th with mean L1B5 of 10.1 and Cedar was 12th with 12.2 in 2000. OK SNGS was way ahead of Cedar then; I don't deny it. I also don't deny that SNGS is a good school even to this day. In fact, I actually wanted to go to SNGS initially.
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2001/pr15082001.htm
It's from MOE and the ranking is based upon mean L1B5. But I thought mean L1B5 doesn't mean anything to you. Why would you have used it as a benchmark for comparison in the early to mid 2000s but not today? Perhaps it's because MOE doesn't pulish it anymore, or not that I can see, and uses the banding exercise instead, which to you, is not something used to judge academic standards of a school.

But personally, although we should not deny a school's past achievements, it shouldn't really be used as a comparison for today. Things can change in 10 years (as you used early 2000s as comparison) In fact, it can change in a year, with Cedar's ranking going up from 18 in 2000 to 12 in 2001. There's nothing wrong in using past results for comparison, but personally, when there's later results available, those should be the ones used for comparison. Of course, I know that MOE no longer publishes a school's exact L1B5, so perhaps the use of early 2000s as a comparison is justified in this case.

Cedar's O level cop is 249 (I'm not 100% sure though) It's a point higher than SNGS, which may be insignificant, or not. Also, many people would also have chosen Cedar O level as they might not be able to get into IP via sec 1 posting, but they'll still have chance to do so when they're in sec 2. So this could perhaps constitute to the one point higher in cop, or not as well. It's more on supply and demand, which is a complicated matter in itself. Anyway my point is both schools are good schools. How good is defined though, is up to the individual and their own criteria (number of top scorers, mean L1B5, CCA achievements etc).