From PSLE to University

[mathsparks]

2ppaamm:

.... how many kids who excel at PSLE top their \"A\" levels or in their uni? Safely, less than 1%.

is this based on published or confidential facts, or is it heresay?

[James Ang]

mathsparks:

2ppaamm:

.... how many kids who excel at PSLE top their \"A\" levels or in their uni? Safely, less than 1%.

is this based on published or confidential facts, or is it heresay?

I agree that justification is required otherwise the statement does not hold water.

[James Ang]

mathsparks:

James Ang:

Some schools are already using O level textbooks in sec 1, why still spend 4 years on O levels or equivalent syllabus (even if the student is on IP) when they start doing O levels syllabus in Sec 1 (Year 1 for IP)?

Of course, these schools are not spending 4 years on O syllabus..They would likely cover the A levels as well, leaving the last 2 years for H3 subjects.

The fact is that the first 4 years of IP are separate from the final 2 years of IP by place of study (they either move to JC or to the senior high school in the case of DHS) and also there is an EOY exam at year 4 covering mostly O levels type of work before \"graduation\" to affiliated JC or senior high. Do you know of someone who does A levels syllabus in IP from Year 1 to Year 4?

[Blobbi]

James Ang:

mathsparks:

[quote=\"2ppaamm\"]

.... how many kids who excel at PSLE top their \"A\" levels or in their uni? Safely, less than 1%.

is this based on published or confidential facts, or is it heresay?

I agree that justification is required otherwise the statement does not hold water. :D[/quote]I know this to be true anecdotally although I don't have percentages. A few of my friends were chatting earlier in the year and this is the same conclusion we came up with. The kids who did well and went on to start schools were mostly only so-so in primary school. Yes there were two who were outstanding throughout (I was from a girl's school), but the top crowd changed quite a bit. And when we came out to work, the successful one (measured by $$, how far they got ahead in terms of work titles) were again different. DH had the same conclusions, and so did my friends.

Was it like similar for you guys?

[2ppaamm]

Blobbi:

I know this to be true anecdotally although I don't have percentages. A few of my friends were chatting earlier in the year and this is the same conclusion we came up with. The kids who did well and went on to start schools were mostly only so-so in primary school. Yes there were two who were outstanding throughout (I was from a girl's school), but the top crowd changed quite a bit. And when we came out to work, the successful one (measured by $$, how far they got ahead in terms of work titles) were again different. DH had the same conclusions, and so did my friends.


Was it like similar for you guys?

I couldn't remember where I read this, it must be 2 years ago when the PSLE results came out. Nevertheless, I teach in the U, from my observation of thousands of students, this is quite true.

But take a look at TMSS. At <14, our students top in Maths and Science, after that, it is silence. U12 win all the medals at international meets, above 18 silence. Our kids burn out too early. Even our national coaches know that for sports, and for academic studies, if I am considered an expert, then I do see that as well.

[2ppaamm]

jedamum:

does it matter? :?

He he, I also don't track this. Not important lah. What you can do is take down all the top PSLE scholars 6 years ago and check if they are the same guys in \"A\" levels. I know only of 1 leh... Unless my info is wrong? 小时了了，大未必佳。

Again, I'm talking about that top top, not about just good PSLE scores.

Also, if you track, it's not those who did well in schools that will excel at work. In the U, we have this funny joke: Be nice to the 1st class honours, they will be our Research assistant, Be nice to the 2nd class honours, they will be great industry contacts, be nice to the non-honours, they will be great industry leaders. Be the nicest to the drop outs, they will be our bosses! Isn't that true? Look at Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Richard Branson etc etc etc...

So, in view of all these, why bother to train our kids into human calculators, better to let them enjoy life and smell the flowers, they will all (90%?) end up in the U (for the next gen, and look at Chief's posting on birthrate and school vacancies - as educators, we all know this), but, to excel, you've got to train your kids other stuff: passion, EQ, human-touch etc etc. Look, if everyone is getting straight As, your kid's got to excel in something else, right? That something else I believe is human touch. Check with industry leaders and human capital management experts on this. Straight As students without that 'extra' don't impress employers anymore. O, unless you want your kids to end up like me... It's a great job, by the way...

Why are you educating your children and why do you want them to score straight A's? I can think of some reasons: 1. So that they learn how to work hard. 2. So that they'll get a good job 3. So that my friends think that I have a smart son/daughter 4. So that I have face 5. Don't know leh, everyone is doing it.

Along the way, we lost our sense of direction. Many of us are pushing our kids for reason (3) and (4). In reality, we don't really need to push so hard if we instill them responsibility and courage and love. They'll all make it and make a decent living. Worse still, if we push too hard, they will burn out and switch off completely. I know some kids who totally 'lost it' in secondary schools and in the Us. Very common hor... Also do some research, please. Teenagers and children are different from adults, their propensity to take pressure is far less than adults, we normally think the opposite. So, a lot of people become insane, siow in their late teenage years. I have done quite a fair bit of research on this, and witnessed this myself. So, look at long term, not just to ace schools. (Having said all these, it is important for me that my kids get into good schools, why? because there are just too many irresponsible or busy parents who cannot or won't teach their kids. Face it, peer influence is vital, and I don't want the wrong kind of peer influence for my kids, good schools buffer some of that.)

Better stop here or I'll go on and on with my lectures. I'm on hols now, so I lecture here instead of in school. :lol: O, me and my strange philosophy again...

[DadOfGirl]

mathsparks:

2ppaamm:

.... how many kids who excel at PSLE top their \"A\" levels or in their uni? Safely, less than 1%.

is this based on published or confidential facts, or is it heresay?

It can't be so low. Some more 'Safely'... LOL. It is definitely heresay!

Singapore system suppose to identify Gifted/ scholers early ... then how can it be less than 1 %

[2ppaamm]

DadOfGirl:

It can't be so low. Some more 'Safely'... LOL. It is definitely heresay!


Singapore system suppose to identify Gifted/ scholers early ... then how can it be less than 1 %

Since none of us have the real numbers, let's do a simple exercise here. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong lah. This is the list of Top PSLE students (Malay, Tamil, Eurasian included) in 2002. Anyone know how they did for 'A' levels? I only know that Tan Tianyi got the PM book prize again (and that's a special achievement), Milashini Nambiar who was the top Indian student (not top PSLE student) became top student in RJC. The rest? Anyone becomes a top 'A' level student again?

O, and this is only at 'A' levels, haven't reach university level yet. Many top 'A' levels students would 'fall off' at the university, when tutors are no longer available. Those who are tutored up till 'A' levels really, really, really, really, really suffer if they do not know how to be independent... :frustrated:

[2ppaamm]

DadOfGirl:

It can't be so low. Some more 'Safely'... LOL. It is definitely heresay!


Singapore system suppose to identify Gifted/ scholers early ... then how can it be less than 1 %

It's not that bad lah. The Singapore system has its own merits, for sure. However, burning my kid out early not really what I like. I do believe I'm raising my kids to enjoy their lives. Yes, we are great with our young maths and science education. Let's investigate international standards. Look at the TIMSS results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trends_in_International_Mathematics_and_Science_Study#Results

See Singapore there? #1 for 2 categoris and #2 for one category. Note, up to 13 years old.

By the same international measurement, we are not the innovators, inventors nor the top business folks. What happened to the geniuses we made at 14 years old?

Look at this list of U40 great minds. none from Singapore? If we do a bit of research, we'll see that some excel very young, but not hothoused. Their blood boil with enthusiasm and passion in the subject they love.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/20-best-brains-under-40/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C=

Then look at this ultimate list. Where is our great Singaporean?

* 2009 - Barack H. Obama
* 2008 - Martti Ahtisaari
* 2007 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Al Gore
* 2006 - Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank
* 2005 - International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei
* 2004 - Wangari Maathai
* 2003 - Shirin Ebadi
* 2002 - Jimmy Carter
* 2001 - United Nations, Kofi Annan
* 2000 - Kim Dae-jung
* 1999 - Médecins Sans Frontières
* 1998 - John Hume, David Trimble
* 1997 - International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jody Williams
* 1996 - Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, José Ramos-Horta
* 1995 - Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
* 1994 - Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin
* 1993 - Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk
* 1992 - Rigoberta Menchú Tum
* 1991 - Aung San Suu Kyi
* 1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev
* 1989 - The 14th Dalai Lama
* 1988 - United Nations Peacekeeping Forces
* 1987 - Oscar Arias Sánchez
* 1986 - Elie Wiesel
* 1985 - International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
* 1984 - Desmond Tutu
* 1983 - Lech Walesa
* 1982 - Alva Myrdal, Alfonso García Robles
* 1981 - Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
* 1980 - Adolfo Pérez Esquivel
* 1979 - Mother Teresa
* 1978 - Anwar al-Sadat, Menachem Begin
* 1977 - Amnesty International
* 1976 - Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan
* 1975 - Andrei Sakharov
* 1974 - Seán MacBride, Eisaku Sato
* 1973 - Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho
* 1972 - The prize money for 1972 was allocated to the Main Fund
* 1971 - Willy Brandt
* 1970 - Norman Borlaug
* 1969 - International Labour Organization
* 1968 - René Cassin
* 1967 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
* 1966 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
* 1965 - United Nations Children's Fund
* 1964 - Martin Luther King Jr.
* 1963 - International Committee of the Red Cross, League of Red Cross Societies
* 1962 - Linus Pauling
* 1961 - Dag Hammarskjöld
* 1960 - Albert Lutuli
* 1959 - Philip Noel-Baker
* 1958 - Georges Pire
* 1957 - Lester Bowles Pearson
* 1956 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
* 1955 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
* 1954 - Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
* 1953 - George C. Marshall
* 1952 - Albert Schweitzer
* 1951 - Léon Jouhaux
* 1950 - Ralph Bunche
* 1949 - Lord Boyd Orr
* 1948 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
* 1947 - Friends Service Council, American Friends Service Committee
* 1946 - Emily Greene Balch, John R. Mott
* 1945 - Cordell Hull
* 1944 - International Committee of the Red Cross
* 1943 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
* 1942 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
* 1941 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
* 1940 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
* 1939 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
* 1938 - Nansen International Office for Refugees
* 1937 - Robert Cecil
* 1936 - Carlos Saavedra Lamas
* 1935 - Carl von Ossietzky
* 1934 - Arthur Henderson
* 1933 - Sir Norman Angell
* 1932 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
* 1931 - Jane Addams, Nicholas Murray Butler
* 1930 - Nathan Söderblom
* 1929 - Frank B. Kellogg
* 1928 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
* 1927 - Ferdinand Buisson, Ludwig Quidde
* 1926 - Aristide Briand, Gustav Stresemann
* 1925 - Sir Austen Chamberlain, Charles G. Dawes
* 1924 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
* 1923 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
* 1922 - Fridtjof Nansen
* 1921 - Hjalmar Branting, Christian Lange
* 1920 - Léon Bourgeois
* 1919 - Woodrow Wilson
* 1918 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
* 1917 - International Committee of the Red Cross
* 1916 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
* 1915 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
* 1914 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
* 1913 - Henri La Fontaine
* 1912 - Elihu Root
* 1911 - Tobias Asser, Alfred Fried
* 1910 - Permanent International Peace Bureau
* 1909 - Auguste Beernaert, Paul Henri d'Estournelles de Constant
* 1908 - Klas Pontus Arnoldson, Fredrik Bajer
* 1907 - Ernesto Teodoro Moneta, Louis Renault
* 1906 - Theodore Roosevelt
* 1905 - Bertha von Suttner
* 1904 - Institute of International Law
* 1903 - Randal Cremer
* 1902 - Élie Ducommun, Albert Gobat
* 1901 - Henry Dunant, Frédéric Passy

[jedamum]

2ppaamm:

Your contribution/help will be appreciated. Then we can do a study to see if our PSLE system really helps/deters our youth from doing better at higher levels.

my take again is ...what's the point?
I do recognise the importance of an all rounded education and that being top in pri sch or at any level does not mean a guaranteed success in life (whichever way you define the term 'success').
my point of contention is .... why are we tracking these kids? do we want them to come in and see their names and how the people around SG are 'tracking' their 'performance growth' and then to feel that they have failed their parents if they had not progressed as 'charted'? try putting yourself in their shoes..

cut these top scorers some slack la. no wonder my husband said that life is simpler for those who came in No. 2.