From PSLE to University

[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.

[mummyjoyce]

No point tracking all these students at all (give a break!) - some will continue to blossom and some will not. It is the same the other side - poorer result students - some develop much later and they will blossom from there onwards. Please note that many successful people do not even have a good education or complete their education.

[wonderm]

jedamum:

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.

Agree with you that we should not single out these kids. It is also meaningless to define \"top performance\" so narrowly.
If we define top performance differently, such as the top 10% students in PSLE vs the top 10% A-Level results, I suspect there is a lot of overlap there, definitely more than 1%.

On the other hand, very few people dispute the fact that some people develop later in life and success in life does not only depend on academic ability. It is at the most only one of the many factors. It is therefore absurd to try to draw conclusion from such statistics (even if such information is available) about the soundness of local education system. We might as well say ALL education system is bad using such measurement.

[Fairy]

2ppaamm:

If you are looking at Medicine, the criteria is pretty stiff and you will need to prepare very early to get a head start.

Hi 2ppaamm,

Can you elaborate more on that? If my child hopes to be a doctor one day and we cannot afford to send her for an overseas education in this discipline, is there other alternative for us? Thanks.

[siak]

Jedamum wrote:

\"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.. \"

Well said and indeed have some wisdom in it. we do not have to pinpoint other's drawback/mistakes to prove us right. What matters is that one's succes does not depend on being top PSLE or Ace in the school, but we should not be saying the other way around. For the sake of research / study to prove the hypothesis, we should keep the names anynomous, as it is sensivitive matter. And i believe it is not the original intention of why we want to track them up. Perhaps any graduate student or any one of us who is interested in the topic can develop further statistic.

I just came accross this very interesting topic which is quite eye opening. there are so many wonderful parents like 2ppamm whose story is very inspiring.
:goodpost:

[2ppaamm]

mummyjoyce:

No point tracking all these students at all (give a break!) - some will continue to blossom and some will not. It is the same the other side - poorer result students - some develop much later and they will blossom from there onwards. Please note that many successful people do not even have a good education or complete their education.

Ya hor, very mean hor, I will remove their names. But point is, they don't top their cohort again in 'A' levels. Not because they are no good, but others who mature later found a way to catch up.

[tired mom]

Hi 2ppaamm,


just read through the entire forum thread.

Though it's been said many times many ways, still want to say it :
:thankyou:

you are truly a very inspiring mum :udawoman:

your kids seem to be really independent and driven. Mine is really far off i think... though she's only P4 and hopefully will change. Nevertheless, it remains a great backup plan.

[mathsparks]

James Ang:

mathsparks:

[quote=\"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?[/quote]Pls read clearly, James. I didn't mention anything about doing A levels in IP from Year 1 to 4. From year3, yes. that would be likely...and I mention to cover, I don't mean to complete the A syllabus by yr4.

In IP schools, most kids start with O level books (Maths/Pure Sciences/Pure Geog). Becos for those who come from the GE program, they would've covered parts of the lower sec maths and science, and dare I say even English too.

So why make them redo what they've already learned. And to quote from the Raffles Program..\"the key elements of the curriculum are advanced content knowledge, higher order process....is challenging and broad-based, developing analytical thinking ....\"

So, what's advanced content knowledge? Simply means doing what's beyond the O levels since they're not spending a full year doing ten year series. And where is this coming from?..likely from the A levels syllabus...can't be H3 right? And since these kids would've done parts of A levels in Yrs3/4, what do they do in Yr5?..H3 subjects..then Yr6, prepare for A levels.

While I don't know of anyone personally doing IP program who's able to compare it with O then A levels, I know for a fact that even tuition centres like aspen and the learning lab have different classes for IP students.

And for TLL, I can confirm for you that at sec4, they're covering GP topics as well.

But ask me a few years later and I can confirm for you. Coz my girl's doing A levels and son's doing IP...or you can always ask any of your existing IP students.

Or any kiasuparents out here have kids who've gone thru both IP and A levels can comment?