<![CDATA[Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010]]>Hi,


Here is the result for 2010 junior chemistry olympiah

http://www.ri.edu.sg/sjcho/home.html

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/topic/12991/singapore-junior-chemistry-olympiah-2010RSS for NodeSun, 07 Jun 2026 10:19:11 GMTTue, 10 Aug 2010 16:32:18 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:17:38 GMT]]>reginaisadog, please quote carefully when you submit a reply. In any case, this subject was discussed last year. Don’t know why you’re bringing it up now. RI won because they played their strategy right of buzzing in first, regardless of whether they knew the answer or not. In fact, they didn’t even know what the question was before buzzing in because the compere didn’t have a chance to read the question before they buzzed in. I gather from your writing you’re a student?

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/410201https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/410201Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:17:38 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Mon, 20 Sep 2010 01:36:01 GMT]]>RGS is really bad at Math and Science in general (except a few–2 or 3 exceptional pupils). The basic reason lies on that the school management staff don’t have strong science background and don’t put effort to support the girls in these areas. It’s far behind the NUS High, let alone RI… That’s why more and more science-inclined girls choose to go to NUS High after PSLE.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/262257https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/262257Mon, 20 Sep 2010 01:36:01 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:37:41 GMT]]>

verykiasu2010:
WeiHan:

[quote=\"verykiasu2010\"]must academic excellence equate to winning the relevant olympiad competition ?


If I understand your question correctly, i would think that the answer is general \"yes\". Also \"academic excellence\" is quite subjective term. How good is excellence? But generally speaking, if a student can win a medal in the respective Olympiah competition, I'll say that he/she is rather gifted in that subject.

of course, yes, agreed with you in general

the \"problem\" is not many are given the opportunity to take part in the competition

some are missed out for whatever reasons that they did not make the mark via the selection test on the test date[/quote]My feeling is that not many really good students will be missed out. If you can tell me any school that stops enthusiastic students from taking part in the competition, then I'll think that is school is not too good. I don't think the teachers will select students to represent the school just basing on 1-2 test results. There is no limitation to the number of students taking part in these competitions especially for the first round.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/243588https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/243588Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:37:41 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:27:21 GMT]]>

WeiHan:
verykiasu2010:

must academic excellence equate to winning the relevant olympiad competition ?


If I understand your question correctly, i would think that the answer is general \"yes\". Also \"academic excellence\" is quite subjective term. How good is excellence? But generally speaking, if a student can win a medal in the respective Olympiah competition, I'll say that he/she is rather gifted in that subject.

of course, yes, agreed with you in general

the \"problem\" is not many are given the opportunity to take part in the competition

some are missed out for whatever reasons that they did not make the mark via the selection test on the test date

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/243305https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/243305Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:27:21 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 08:06:20 GMT]]>

verykiasu2010:
must academic excellence equate to winning the relevant olympiad competition ?

If I understand your question correctly, i would think that the answer is general \"yes\". Also \"academic excellence\" is quite subjective term. How good is excellence? But generally speaking, if a student can win a medal in the respective Olympiah competition, I'll say that he/she is rather gifted in that subject.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/243220https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/243220Wed, 18 Aug 2010 08:06:20 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 05:11:36 GMT]]>must academic excellence equate to winning the relevant olympiad competition ?

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/243056https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/243056Wed, 18 Aug 2010 05:11:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 04:56:05 GMT]]>

WeiHan:
Credit should still be given to the RI's boys for spotting the loophole. When all competitors are equally strong, it is always this kind of little \"extra bit\" that determines who is the champion. This is also true in real life.

I won't say that it is a loophole. Among the 3 teams, in terms of technical knowledge, I think RI is the strongest followed by BPGHS (based on their performance in the semi-finals with HCI) and then RGS. Since RGS was with RI in the semi-finals, she was well aware of RI's strategy of buzzing in before the whole question was read out. Unfortunately, they were not confident that they would be able to answer the \"unknown\" questions if they did get the right to answer the questions. BPGHS tried to use the same strategy but could not answer most of the questions. Overall, I think RI is the deserving champion in NSC2010.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/243035https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/243035Wed, 18 Aug 2010 04:56:05 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 04:44:49 GMT]]>

WeiHan:
Anyway you try to look at it. RGS has 19 medals, CGS has 14 medals. I think some people will agree with me that CGS relative performance is better considering their cutoff point is almost 20 points lower than RGS at psle.

Hi WeiHan,
I saw a lot of blatent sweeping statements (not referring to yours) in this thread, that's why I gave my 2cts earlier. I would like to re-iterate that, I feel RGS' results are respectable (though not outstanding) and should not be compared with boys' schools results since the boys will generally perform better than girls in Maths and Science - just look at the statistics of IMO, IChO, IPhO, IOI etc.

I don't think it is fair to bring in the PSLE cut-off points here. Firstly, the PSLE component is made up of 4 subjects and not just Science. Most RGS girls are probably stronger in languages than in Maths & Science (but they are still the strongest among the girls' schools, if you compare achievements in Maths & Science competitions among all the girls' schools here). Secondly, and the most important point, be it CGS and RGS or some other schools, I believe quite a substantial number of medalists come from PRC - many are likely to be scholars who joined the various schools in Sec 3, and hence has nothing to do with PSLE score.

Cheers and warmest regards.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/243026https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/243026Wed, 18 Aug 2010 04:44:49 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:23:25 GMT]]>

jtoh:
WeiHan:

[quote=\"jtoh\"]


In effect, they won because they took advantage of the flaw in the rules. The rules should've been that the question should've been taken off the screen once someone buzzed in. That way teams wouldn't be buzzing in without reading the question first.

Credit should still be given to the RI's boys for spotting the loophole. When all competitors are equally strong, it is always this kind of little \"extra bit\" that determines who is the champion. This is also true in real life.

I think the RI boys were smart to spot the loophole and use it to their advantage.[/quote]Agree = they looked for an advantage and optimised it to their benefit! Good strategy.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/242381https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/242381Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:23:25 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Mon, 16 Aug 2010 05:58:58 GMT]]>

WeiHan:
jtoh:




In effect, they won because they took advantage of the flaw in the rules. The rules should've been that the question should've been taken off the screen once someone buzzed in. That way teams wouldn't be buzzing in without reading the question first.

Credit should still be given to the RI's boys for spotting the loophole. When all competitors are equally strong, it is always this kind of little \"extra bit\" that determines who is the champion. This is also true in real life.

I think the RI boys were smart to spot the loophole and use it to their advantage.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240968https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240968Mon, 16 Aug 2010 05:58:58 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Mon, 16 Aug 2010 05:32:49 GMT]]>

jtoh:



In effect, they won because they took advantage of the flaw in the rules. The rules should've been that the question should've been taken off the screen once someone buzzed in. That way teams wouldn't be buzzing in without reading the question first.
Credit should still be given to the RI's boys for spotting the loophole. When all competitors are equally strong, it is always this kind of little \"extra bit\" that determines who is the champion. This is also true in real life.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240902https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240902Mon, 16 Aug 2010 05:32:49 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Mon, 16 Aug 2010 05:10:15 GMT]]>

mjl:

Hi WeiHan,
It is a known fact that boys are generally stronger than girls in Maths and Science, and girls are better than boys in linguistics, presentation skills, analytical skills and problem solving. For all Maths (you can refer to SMO results) & Science olympiads, without doubt the boys will perform better. If you have watched the recent NSC2010, you can see how RGS beat RI hands down in the studio presentation and on-site challenge (where problem solving and analytical skills are required) but lost badly to RI in the rapid fire round (which requires technical knowledge). RGS also performs extremely well in problem solving competitions like Odyssey of the Mind, which RI pales in comparision.

So it is natural that girls' schools like RGS or NYGH do not perform as well when compared to boys' schools or mixed schools like RI, NUS High and HCI. For girls' schools, if you are referring to absolute numbers, here are the number of medals won:
RGS 19
Crecent Girls 14
NYGH 9
TKGS 5
SCGS 5
Cedar Girls 0

RGS is definitely the top girls' school for Maths & Science. Therefore, I don't see anything surprising in the results.
Hi mjl,

I am not trying to pick on RGS or NYGH just trying to make some objective comparison.

You may be right to a certain extent that boys are generally stronger in maths and science but it is still not a good enough excuse for very good girls school not to perform up to expectation. You say that girls are better in analytic and problem solving skills but Maths and Science Olympiahs are really actually testing students analytic and problem solving skills (at a deeper level). Boys may be better in Maths and Physics but maybe not so much in Chemistry and biology.

Anyway you try to look at it. RGS has 19 medals, CGS has 14 medals. I think some people will agree with me that CGS relative performance is better considering their cutoff point is almost 20 points lower than RGS at psle.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240862https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240862Mon, 16 Aug 2010 05:10:15 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Mon, 16 Aug 2010 03:25:24 GMT]]>

jtoh:
Just an aside, for the National Science Challenge Quiz, in the rapid-fire round, RI was pressing the buzzer as soon as the host opened her mouth to read the question. Often times, she did not even get a word in. So RI's strategy was to buzz in and block off the other two schools from answering. They then took their time to answer the question once it was flashed on the projector, within the stipulated time limit. There were times they were unable to answer the question. In fact, in one instance, after buzzing in, the boys were going \"I don't know, I don't know.\" But these were edited out in the final version that went on air.


So what I'm saying is, RI didn't win the round because of technical knowledge, but because of RI's strategy in buzzing in first. And it was an effective strategy, because they had nothing to lose coming into the final round in last place.
Agree - the organisers should just put the qns on the projector instead! Everyone gets a fair chance. Honestly, the host looks totally out of place and clueless!

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240743https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240743Mon, 16 Aug 2010 03:25:24 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Mon, 16 Aug 2010 03:22:06 GMT]]>

WeiHan:
mjl:

[quote=\"24by7mum\"]Yes i agree that those schools have done well! Even CHIJ Toa Payoh who send in 28 students managed to garner 8 medals! But a lot is left to be said of some of the Premier schools especially RGS and NYGH!


RGS made it compulsory for all the Year 4s to take the SJChO. I think the results is okay considering that there is no training at all for the students. I guess if CHIJ Toa Payoh were to make it a compulsory competition, then it is likely that the school will win 8 out of 470 (just a random figure) instead of 8 out of 28 :lol: I am just trying to say that is not fair to decide if a school has done well based on the % of students participated who clinch awards.

But we may not be talking about % of students taking part in the competition. We are talking about absolute % of the entire cohort of students capable of getting a medal. You see the point? We want to see how many students in the cohort can win a medal and not the percentage of the students who have taken part. According to this measure, the absolute number of medals won by RGS is still surprisingly too low. The fact that they have sent the entire sec 4 to take part in the competition only prove that no potential medal winners have been left out.

As for training part, I concur that you may be right that there may be no extra training for some schools. It may prove certain things. 1. Even very good quality students need good education to develop their potential. 2. Schools that is most popular with the best intake may not necessarily mean that they provide better quality education than other schools.[/quote]Touche! You hit the nail on the head!

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240734https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240734Mon, 16 Aug 2010 03:22:06 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Mon, 16 Aug 2010 03:20:59 GMT]]>

mjl:
24by7mum:

Yes i agree that those schools have done well! Even CHIJ Toa Payoh who send in 28 students managed to garner 8 medals! But a lot is left to be said of some of the Premier schools especially RGS and NYGH!


RGS made it compulsory for all the Year 4s to take the SJChO. I think the results is okay considering that there is no training at all for the students. I guess if CHIJ Toa Payoh were to make it a compulsory competition, then it is likely that the school will win 8 out of 470 (just a random figure) instead of 8 out of 28 :lol: I am just trying to say that is not fair to decide if a school has done well based on the % of students participated who clinch awards.

ha ha that shows the true standard. Well, I checked with my friend whose dd is in CHIJ and took the SJChO and they did not have any training at all! They just went for it! She said that they only have about 170 girls taking Chemistry! Any way you look at it, RGS did poorly!

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240729https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240729Mon, 16 Aug 2010 03:20:59 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Mon, 16 Aug 2010 03:09:15 GMT]]>

snowz:
jtoh:

Just an aside, for the National Science Challenge Quiz, in the rapid-fire round, RI was pressing the buzzer as soon as the host opened her mouth to read the question. Often times, she did not even get a word in. So RI's strategy was to buzz in and block off the other two schools from answering. They then took their time to answer the question once it was flashed on the projector, within the stipulated time limit. There were times they were unable to answer the question. In fact, in one instance, after buzzing in, the boys were going \"I don't know, I don't know.\" But these were edited out in the final version that went on air.


So what I'm saying is, RI didn't win the round because of technical knowledge, but because of RI's strategy in buzzing in first. And it was an effective strategy, because they had nothing to lose coming into the final round in last place.

Should there be some rules and regulation... or something? :?

The rules were that after buzzing in, teams had a certain number of seconds to give their answer. I'm not sure exactly the number of seconds, about 10 sec I think. So once a team had buzzed in, it had 10 secs to read the question off the screen and give their answer. The other teams couldn't do anything.

If the team gave the correct answer, it had points added. Wrong answer, points deducted. As RI came into the final round in last place, it had nothing to lose by giving wrong answers. And everything to gain if they got the questions correct. So their strategy was to block off the other schools from answering.

In effect, they won because they took advantage of the flaw in the rules. The rules should've been that the question should've been taken off the screen once someone buzzed in. That way teams wouldn't be buzzing in without reading the question first.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240699https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240699Mon, 16 Aug 2010 03:09:15 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Mon, 16 Aug 2010 02:53:22 GMT]]>

jtoh:
Just an aside, for the National Science Challenge Quiz, in the rapid-fire round, RI was pressing the buzzer as soon as the host opened her mouth to read the question. Often times, she did not even get a word in. So RI's strategy was to buzz in and block off the other two schools from answering. They then took their time to answer the question once it was flashed on the projector, within the stipulated time limit. There were times they were unable to answer the question. In fact, in one instance, after buzzing in, the boys were going \"I don't know, I don't know.\" But these were edited out in the final version that went on air.


So what I'm saying is, RI didn't win the round because of technical knowledge, but because of RI's strategy in buzzing in first. And it was an effective strategy, because they had nothing to lose coming into the final round in last place.
Should there be some rules and regulation... or something? :?

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240667https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240667Mon, 16 Aug 2010 02:53:22 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Mon, 16 Aug 2010 02:44:47 GMT]]>Just an aside, for the National Science Challenge Quiz, in the rapid-fire round, RI was pressing the buzzer as soon as the host opened her mouth to read the question. Often times, she did not even get a word in. So RI’s strategy was to buzz in and block off the other two schools from answering. They then took their time to answer the question once it was flashed on the projector, within the stipulated time limit. There were times they were unable to answer the question. In fact, in one instance, after buzzing in, the boys were going "I don’t know, I don’t know." But these were edited out in the final version that went on air.


So what I’m saying is, RI didn’t win the round because of technical knowledge, but because of RI’s strategy in buzzing in first. And it was an effective strategy, because they had nothing to lose coming into the final round in last place.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240655https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240655Mon, 16 Aug 2010 02:44:47 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Mon, 16 Aug 2010 01:35:27 GMT]]>

WeiHan:
But we may not be talking about % of students taking part in the competition. We are talking about absolute % of the entire cohort of students capable of getting a medal. You see the point? We want to see how many students in the cohort can win a medal and not the percentage of the students who have taken part. According to this measure, the absolute number of medals won by RGS is still surprisingly too low. The fact that they have sent the entire sec 4 to take part in the competition only prove that no potential medal winners have been left out.

Hi WeiHan,
It is a known fact that boys are generally stronger than girls in Maths and Science, and girls are better than boys in linguistics, presentation skills, analytical skills and problem solving. For all Maths (you can refer to SMO results) & Science olympiads, without doubt the boys will perform better. If you have watched the recent NSC2010, you can see how RGS beat RI hands down in the studio presentation and on-site challenge (where problem solving and analytical skills are required) but lost badly to RI in the rapid fire round (which requires technical knowledge). RGS also performs extremely well in problem solving competitions like Odyssey of the Mind, which RI pales in comparision.

So it is natural that girls' schools like RGS or NYGH do not perform as well when compared to boys' schools or mixed schools like RI, NUS High and HCI. For girls' schools, if you are referring to absolute numbers, here are the number of medals won:
RGS 19
Crecent Girls 14
NYGH 9
TKGS 5
SCGS 5
Cedar Girls 0

RGS is definitely the top girls' school for Maths & Science. Therefore, I don't see anything surprising in the results.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240552https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240552Mon, 16 Aug 2010 01:35:27 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Sun, 15 Aug 2010 05:59:54 GMT]]>I notice tt most of the top performers in all academics Olympiads are male .... 😉

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240248https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240248Sun, 15 Aug 2010 05:59:54 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Sun, 15 Aug 2010 05:30:25 GMT]]>

mjl:
24by7mum:

Yes i agree that those schools have done well! Even CHIJ Toa Payoh who send in 28 students managed to garner 8 medals! But a lot is left to be said of some of the Premier schools especially RGS and NYGH!


RGS made it compulsory for all the Year 4s to take the SJChO. I think the results is okay considering that there is no training at all for the students. I guess if CHIJ Toa Payoh were to make it a compulsory competition, then it is likely that the school will win 8 out of 470 (just a random figure) instead of 8 out of 28 :lol: I am just trying to say that is not fair to decide if a school has done well based on the % of students participated who clinch awards.

But we may not be talking about % of students taking part in the competition. We are talking about absolute % of the entire cohort of students capable of getting a medal. You see the point? We want to see how many students in the cohort can win a medal and not the percentage of the students who have taken part. According to this measure, the absolute number of medals won by RGS is still surprisingly too low. The fact that they have sent the entire sec 4 to take part in the competition only prove that no potential medal winners have been left out.

As for training part, I concur that you may be right that there may be no extra training for some schools. It may prove certain things. 1. Even very good quality students need good education to develop their potential. 2. Schools that is most popular with the best intake may not necessarily mean that they provide better quality education than other schools.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240239https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240239Sun, 15 Aug 2010 05:30:25 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Sun, 15 Aug 2010 02:34:39 GMT]]>

24by7mum:
Yes i agree that those schools have done well! Even CHIJ Toa Payoh who send in 28 students managed to garner 8 medals! But a lot is left to be said of some of the Premier schools especially RGS and NYGH!

RGS made it compulsory for all the Year 4s to take the SJChO. I think the results is okay considering that there is no training at all for the students. I guess if CHIJ Toa Payoh were to make it a compulsory competition, then it is likely that the school will win 8 out of 470 (just a random figure) instead of 8 out of 28 :lol: I am just trying to say that is not fair to decide if a school has done well based on the % of students participated who clinch awards.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240188https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/240188Sun, 15 Aug 2010 02:34:39 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:05:38 GMT]]>

WeiHan:
From my point of view, schools that have commendable results are Catholic High, River Valley High, Crescent Girls School and St Joseph Inst. The reason is the \"expected performance\" of the intake quality relative to the performance.

Yes i agree that those schools have done well! Even CHIJ Toa Payoh who send in 28 students managed to garner 8 medals! But a lot is left to be said of some of the Premier schools especially RGS and NYGH!

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/239729https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/239729Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:05:38 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Singapore Junior Chemistry Olympiah 2010 on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:58:37 GMT]]>From my point of view, schools that have commendable results are Catholic High, River Valley High, Crescent Girls School and St Joseph Inst. The reason is the "expected performance" of the intake quality relative to the performance.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/239629https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/239629Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:58:37 GMT