Aristocare
-
Zeng:
Thats why the relevant authorities (or anyone here can confirm) should check if this so called center is registered bec in its original website info before it was taken down and in this thread, it was mentioned that there is a $200 registration fee ( payable annually) and a deposit. So if it is not a tution center, is the Consumer Act that Case mentioned in ST applicable? If these are free lance private transactions, what kind of rules/law are applicable?Lynn2010:
[quote=\"Zeng\"]But is aristocare registered as a tuition center?
Could be the so called free lance tuition at home.
This is interesting and it reminds me of an experience:
There is this Eng tutor, claimed to be from a 2nd tier current sec sch teacher, who used her home to give tuition. She advertised \"XXX tuition centre\" (not sure if it is registered). When i called, she said she teaches from home and encouraged me to bring my kids along to her place to check out. It was in the west, a 3 rm flat (which i've no problem). The strange thing is, she charges \"registration fee\". hahahah.... she operates like a tuition centre which she wanted fees in advance (cant remember now if it is a term or a month), and a deposit. She asked us to complete a registration form.
I passed the form to my dds who spotted a few spelling mistakes (which you may think it is typo error)..... and grammatical mistakes in her \"terms and conditions\". Hahahaha..... English teacher!!!! no need to say, if my dds have to correct her English, we didnt proceed with the tuition
If you recall, in their website, Aristocare has 3 names as \"directors\" and \"principal\". Where are there? How come ST did not mention or interview all these directors?[/quote]Nothing is real from this con man... :evil: -
Kiasucy:
Phantom directors
Nothing is real from this con man... :evil:Zeng:
Thats why the relevant authorities (or anyone here can confirm) should check if this so called center is registered bec in its original website info before it was taken down and in this thread, it was mentioned that there is a $200 registration fee ( payable annually) and a deposit. So if it is not a tution center, is the Consumer Act that Case mentioned in ST applicable? If these are free lance private transactions, what kind of rules/law are applicable?
If you recall, in their website, Aristocare has 3 names as \"directors\" and \"principal\". Where are there? How come ST did not mention or interview all these directors? -
Lynn2010:
:goodpost: :goodpost:jtoh:
He knows there are parents who'll do anything to get their kids into GEP so he figures he can make a lot of money off them. If the parents weren't that desperate, he would have no biz. Makes me wonder if Dr Peh is at fault for calling his tuition centre Dr Peh when he is just a Mr Peh. Hhmmm....
If only MOE banned all these GEP training centres and the parents just let the children be; if they are gifted, so are they and no need special training to be gifted.
This way, MOE will really get those really gifted ones and not those who are trained to be gifted...... -
mamago:
:goodpost: :goodpost:[/quote]Banning isn't the issue... enforcing it is. And Singapore isn't like other neighbouring countries, it doesn't like to set laws which it can't enforce. Still, it may be a good idea to make an example out of KO.Lynn2010:
[quote=\"jtoh\"]He knows there are parents who'll do anything to get their kids into GEP so he figures he can make a lot of money off them. If the parents weren't that desperate, he would have no biz. Makes me wonder if Dr Peh is at fault for calling his tuition centre Dr Peh when he is just a Mr Peh. Hhmmm....
If only MOE banned all these GEP training centres and the parents just let the children be; if they are gifted, so are they and no need special training to be gifted.
This way, MOE will really get those really gifted ones and not those who are trained to be gifted...... -
Zeng:
Nope, relevant authorities won't check. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, why would the government get its hands dirty? It'll just sit back, relax, and let the disgruntled parents hire private investigators and lawyers.Thats why the relevant authorities (or anyone here can confirm) should check if this so called center is registered bec in its original website info before it was taken down and in this thread, it was mentioned that there is a $200 registration fee ( payable annually) and a deposit. So if it is not a tution center, is the Consumer Act that Case mentioned in ST applicable? If these are free lance private transactions, what kind of rules/law are applicable?
If you recall, in their website, Aristocare has 3 names as \"directors\" and \"principal\". Where are there? How come ST did not mention or interview all these directors?
The forum letter from CASE already proves it, right? Instead of starting its own investigation to find out who was affected and take action against KO, it chooses to write a letter, inviting people to officially complain and seek legal action. Easy way out.
Of course, it's obvious that not everyone reads the papers/forums every day and could have missed CASE's message, but CASE doesn't care, does it?
I still stand by what I say: Parents should not get refunds since they were told by the government that GEP can't be trained (implication: GEP training sessions are useless/fake). But the government should still take action against KO just like any other scammer, instead of waiting for people to take their own legal action. -
ForumWriter:
With so many news reported recently, it is time they put it a stop to service priveders of GEP related training if thy still want to have this programme in place, else it become insulting to the education system here.
Nope, relevant authorities won't check. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, why would the government get its hands dirty? It'll just sit back, relax, and let the disgruntled parents hire private investigators and lawyers.Zeng:
Thats why the relevant authorities (or anyone here can confirm) should check if this so called center is registered bec in its original website info before it was taken down and in this thread, it was mentioned that there is a $200 registration fee ( payable annually) and a deposit. So if it is not a tution center, is the Consumer Act that Case mentioned in ST applicable? If these are free lance private transactions, what kind of rules/law are applicable?
If you recall, in their website, Aristocare has 3 names as \"directors\" and \"principal\". Where are there? How come ST did not mention or interview all these directors?
The forum letter from CASE already proves it, right? Instead of starting its own investigation to find out who was affected and take action against KO, it chooses to write a letter, inviting people to officially complain and seek legal action. Easy way out.
Of course, it's obvious that not everyone reads the papers/forums every day and could have missed CASE's message, but CASE doesn't care, does it?
I still stand by what I say: Parents should not get refunds since they were told by the government that GEP can't be trained (implication: GEP training sessions are useless/fake). But the goverment should still take action against KO just like any other scammer, instead of waiting for people to take their own legal action. -
Quote:
He knows there are parents who'll do anything to get their kids into GEP so he figures he can make a lot of money off them. If the parents weren't that desperate, he would have no biz. Makes me wonder if Dr Peh is at fault for calling his tuition centre Dr Peh when he is just a Mr Peh. Hhmmm....
Straits Times Reporters,
pls help parents verify into Dr Peh background too. (just in case) Thank you.Otah:
agree !
With so much news reported recently, it is time they put it a stop to service priveders of GEP related training if thy still want to have this programme in place, else it become insulting to the education system here.ForumWriter:
CASE doesn't care, does it?
I still stand by what I say: Parents should not get refunds since they were told by the government that GEP can't be trained (implication: GEP training sessions are useless / fake). But the goverment should still take action against KO just like any other scammer, instead of waiting for people to take their own legal action.
government should intervene and put a stop, take action on ALL GEP Training centres including Dr. Peh, MindStretcher, other existing ones + new potential ones (scam con men ) entering the market. ENFORCE the LAW ! -
Jane Ng, the Sunday Times Reporter on the Education Beat, emailed me sometime in May 2012 asking for my views and comments on the current trend of tuition centres offering classes to prepare Primary 3 students for the Gifted Education Programme tests held in August. I emailed her my reply (a small part of which was featured as a quote in the article "My Child is Gifted"; The Sunday Times 3 June 2012, Page 10) and I reproduce my full email reply to the reporter below. :
"I am Mr Zhou Shicai, Head Mentor and Owner of NickleBee Tutors and I would like to share a little with regards to what I feel about this phenomenon of Primary 3 students undergoing training for the Gifted Education Programme (GEP).
First of all, a little background about my educational qualifications and my experience in the education/tutoring sector to provide some context to my comments below. I took and passed both rounds of the GEP screening and selection tests back in 1993 and gained entry into the Gifted Education Programme in Rosyth Primary. After my PSLE, I continued my GEP education in Raffles Institution until i took my ‘O’ Levels and graduated from the Gifted Education Programme, following which, I did my ‘A’ Levels at VJC. Took a long detour into NUS Dentistry because my mother wanted the prestige of having a son who’s a doctor but I was never really happy inside and I quit in my 4th year. I am currently an accountancy undergrad and and the owner of NickleBee Tutors which I set up together with a couple of friends in the MOE teaching service. I have been providing tutoring and mentoring services in Maths to Gifted Education Programme, High Ability and Integrated Programme students for nearly 10 years now (since my national service days) and what started out as a means to pay my way through college has become a passion for me.
I would like to share that NickleBee Tutors came to the consensus some time back that we do not agree with and will never provide preparatory courses for the Gifted Education Programme even as the market for such courses grew. We felt that it is contrary to the ideals and goals of the selection process for the GEP, and places unnecessary expectations and stress on the Primary 3 students. I have further elaborated below in 3 points, on why I am not comfortable with the idea that training should be offered to students taking the GEP screening and selection test :
Point 1 :
I am not convinced of the effectiveness such training courses have in boosting the chances of a child in gaining entry into the GEP. Naturally, Tuition Centres that provide such courses will provide anecdotal evidence and statistics to bolster their claim that their programme produces a high percentage of their students who gained entry into the GEP. If however, such tuition centres conduct selection tests or require applicants to fulfil certain stringent academic criteria before they are allowed to join their training programmes, this will result in a classic case of Sampling Bias, whereby their students have been selected for with extreme prejudice and as such it is erroneous to attribute the success rate of the training programme to the quality of their trainers and syllabus. To put it simply, if you select the best and brightest of your applicants, no matter how you train them, a large proportion will eventually gain entry into the GEP with or without the trainers’ help.
Point 2 :
The GEP test comprises of 2 parts, the screening test which comes with a Math and English component, following which there is a selection test which has English, Math and General Ability components. The GEP tests are actually a measure of a child’s innate cognitive ability such as logical thinking, reasoning skills and analytical ability through such exercises as Critical Reading, Analogies, Arithmetic reasoning and Geometric reasoning, just to name a few. The GEP Branch in MOE has stressed time and time again in letters to parents that the GEP test do not presume that the child has advanced his academic knowledge (in Maths and English) beyond the primary 3 or 4 level and that parents should not place undue pressure on their child to study for the GEP test. As i had pointed out earlier, the GEP test is designed to test the child’s innate logical thinking, reasoning skills and analytical ability when faced with problems or information that the child may not have faced before. By administering the GEP test, the GEP Branch is looking for those who are able to approach problems and concepts from different perspectives, are able to think critically, have great imagination and creativity, and display initiative in identifying what they wish to learn and are able to grasp concepts way beyond their years. As research overseas have shown and which GEP branch in MOE maintains, "Intellectual Giftedness" is (in current mainstream psychology) recognized as an inborn trait with a genetic component that is partly innate and manifests in early childhood. Though it is thought that biological, sociological and environmental factors do play a role, it is clear that the manifestation of "Intellectual Giftedness" is not significantly due to a product of deliberate learning and prior practice.
Point 3 :
Lastly, I am concerned with the long term effects when a High-Ability (but not by definition "Intellectually Gifted") child is trained to gain entry into the GEP. The GEP is a challenging and rigorous environment so designed to stimulate, nurture and develop the nascent innate capabilities of the Gifted students within. For example, in GEP maths, the students are taught topics that are not covered in the mainstream primary maths syllabus examples of which are, number systems of the ancient civilizations, how to derive quadratic equations using an algorithmic method, combinations & permutations, prime factorization and even the concept of "Perfect" and "Amicable" numbers just to name a few. Not to mention the countless projects, investigation practices and self-directed learning assignments that the students are expected to perform just for the subject of maths alone. If the child is not cut out for the programme, the child will fail to adapt well and may end up losing self-esteem and confidence in his own abilities. And at the end of it all, the child will reap few benefits from being in the GEP and might have been better off in a high-ability class.
The above are my personal opinions on the matter because it is my deepest belief that every child should be allowed to develop to the full potential of his innate ability at a pace he is comfortable with and no one should be allowed to force any child to become someone he patently isn’t. If a child gains entry into the GEP by his own merits and ability, by all means. He will probably enjoy and thrive in the new environment he is placed in. However if a child does not manage to enter the GEP, he should not be disheartened, there are many forms of Giftedness (e.g sports, music, languages, business, leadership, ability to inspire) and Intellectual Giftedness is just one of many. There are many routes to personal achievement in life and being a GEP alumnus is not the sole and primary predictor for future success. As Albert Einstein so succinctly put it : “Everybody is a genius. But, if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.” "
Thank you for taking the time to read my post and I hope it has been an enlightening read. -
I agree to your views as I have seen with my own eyes a couple of kids trained since preschool but they failed to get into the programme. They are high ability for some. The other pitfall is these children who have trained so hard, when they do not enter the programme it can be devastating for a while and parents have to spend time to lift themselves and the kids up again.
I have seen enough disappointment in people to share that it is unhealthy to do this to self and child. Parents and child suffer denial stage for a while and even the dec holidays were ruined by spending more time drilling for mainstream course. Not only the GEP trained were disappointed, parents who invested in tonnes of brain training programme since toddlers were just as disappointed.
All is not a bed of roses for those who entered into GEP without the innate ability. There are kids who simply cannot understand some of the advanced concepts and no parents can be in class to help them. All the inadaquecy will surface in class and it actually is worse for the child. The parents may enjoy the prestige but the child suffers in class. Supposing these are not trained children, some are already struggling in the course. The trained ones without strong innate ability will struggle eventually. -
NickleBee Tutors:
Dea NickleBeeJane Ng, the Sunday Times Reporter on the Education Beat, emailed me sometime in May 2012 asking for my views and comments on the current trend of tuition centres offering classes to prepare Primary 3 students for the Gifted Education Programme tests held in August. I emailed her my reply (a small part of which was featured as a quote in the article \"My Child is Gifted\"; The Sunday Times 3 June 2012, Page 10) and I reproduce my full email reply to the reporter below. :
\"I am Mr Zhou Shicai, Head Mentor and Owner of NickleBee Tutors and I would like to share a little with regards to what I feel about this phenomenon of Primary 3 students undergoing training for the Gifted Education Programme (GEP).
First of all, a little background about my educational qualifications and my experience in the education/tutoring sector to provide some context to my comments below. I took and passed both rounds of the GEP screening and selection tests back in 1993 and gained entry into the Gifted Education Programme in Rosyth Primary. After my PSLE, I continued my GEP education in Raffles Institution until i took my 'O' Levels and graduated from the Gifted Education Programme, following which, I did my 'A' Levels at VJC. Took a long detour into NUS Dentistry because my mother wanted the prestige of having a son who's a doctor but I was never really happy inside and I quit in my 4th year. I am currently an accountancy undergrad and and the owner of NickleBee Tutors which I set up together with a couple of friends in the MOE teaching service. I have been providing tutoring and mentoring services in Maths to Gifted Education Programme, High Ability and Integrated Programme students for nearly 10 years now (since my national service days) and what started out as a means to pay my way through college has become a passion for me.
I would like to share that NickleBee Tutors came to the consensus some time back that we do not agree with and will never provide preparatory courses for the Gifted Education Programme even as the market for such courses grew. We felt that it is contrary to the ideals and goals of the selection process for the GEP, and places unnecessary expectations and stress on the Primary 3 students. I have further elaborated below in 3 points, on why I am not comfortable with the idea that training should be offered to students taking the GEP screening and selection test :
Point 1 :
I am not convinced of the effectiveness such training courses have in boosting the chances of a child in gaining entry into the GEP. Naturally, Tuition Centres that provide such courses will provide anecdotal evidence and statistics to bolster their claim that their programme produces a high percentage of their students who gained entry into the GEP. If however, such tuition centres conduct selection tests or require applicants to fulfil certain stringent academic criteria before they are allowed to join their training programmes, this will result in a classic case of Sampling Bias, whereby their students have been selected for with extreme prejudice and as such it is erroneous to attribute the success rate of the training programme to the quality of their trainers and syllabus. To put it simply, if you select the best and brightest of your applicants, no matter how you train them, a large proportion will eventually gain entry into the GEP with or without the trainers' help.
Point 2 :
The GEP test comprises of 2 parts, the screening test which comes with a Math and English component, following which there is a selection test which has English, Math and General Ability components. The GEP tests are actually a measure of a child's innate cognitive ability such as logical thinking, reasoning skills and analytical ability through such exercises as Critical Reading, Analogies, Arithmetic reasoning and Geometric reasoning, just to name a few. The GEP Branch in MOE has stressed time and time again in letters to parents that the GEP test do not presume that the child has advanced his academic knowledge (in Maths and English) beyond the primary 3 or 4 level and that parents should not place undue pressure on their child to study for the GEP test. As i had pointed out earlier, the GEP test is designed to test the child's innate logical thinking, reasoning skills and analytical ability when faced with problems or information that the child may not have faced before. By administering the GEP test, the GEP Branch is looking for those who are able to approach problems and concepts from different perspectives, are able to think critically, have great imagination and creativity, and display initiative in identifying what they wish to learn and are able to grasp concepts way beyond their years. As research overseas have shown and which GEP branch in MOE maintains, \"Intellectual Giftedness\" is (in current mainstream psychology) recognized as an inborn trait with a genetic component that is partly innate and manifests in early childhood. Though it is thought that biological, sociological and environmental factors do play a role, it is clear that the manifestation of \"Intellectual Giftedness\" is not significantly due to a product of deliberate learning and prior practice.
Point 3 :
Lastly, I am concerned with the long term effects when a High-Ability (but not by definition \"Intellectually Gifted\") child is trained to gain entry into the GEP. The GEP is a challenging and rigorous environment so designed to stimulate, nurture and develop the nascent innate capabilities of the Gifted students within. For example, in GEP maths, the students are taught topics that are not covered in the mainstream primary maths syllabus examples of which are, number systems of the ancient civilizations, how to derive quadratic equations using an algorithmic method, combinations & permutations, prime factorization and even the concept of \"Perfect\" and \"Amicable\" numbers just to name a few. Not to mention the countless projects, investigation practices and self-directed learning assignments that the students are expected to perform just for the subject of maths alone. If the child is not cut out for the programme, the child will fail to adapt well and may end up losing self-esteem and confidence in his own abilities. And at the end of it all, the child will reap few benefits from being in the GEP and might have been better off in a high-ability class.
The above are my personal opinions on the matter because it is my deepest belief that every child should be allowed to develop to the full potential of his innate ability at a pace he is comfortable with and no one should be allowed to force any child to become someone he patently isn't. If a child gains entry into the GEP by his own merits and ability, by all means. He will probably enjoy and thrive in the new environment he is placed in. However if a child does not manage to enter the GEP, he should not be disheartened, there are many forms of Giftedness (e.g sports, music, languages, business, leadership, ability to inspire) and Intellectual Giftedness is just one of many. There are many routes to personal achievement in life and being a GEP alumnus is not the sole and primary predictor for future success. As Albert Einstein so succinctly put it : “Everybody is a genius. But, if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.” \"
Thank you for taking the time to read my post and I hope it has been an enlightening read.
Thank you for your enlightening post on National Day. Have some queries for you
1.I am always very curious to know exactly what all these so called GEP trainers provide that can persuade many parents to part $1000 or more per mth for training or is it bec of the glittering track record such as \"50% of my our students top their schs or 80% of our students get into GEP\"?
2.Do you think the term GEP is a misnomer and perhaps a better term can be used? GEP refers to the top1% of performers based on the selection test but in reality in every batch only a few are really profoundly gifted beyond their years. By doing away with the term \"gifted\" perhaps there will be lesser bragging rights and GEP training will bec less popular.
3. A lot of us have kids who are struggling in sch and thats why we land up in KSP forum looking to learn from others and for some desperate looking for solutions. In years gone by, parents send their struggling kids to tuition centers but nowadays parents send their already very bright kids to tuition centers to make them even brighter. Do you think it is bec the curriculum is getting tougher and if tuition makes any diff to the latter group?
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