Secondary 2 Streaming
-
Tan Chuan Jin’s 1st degree was BSc Econs, at LSE.
I agree we need more leaders who have a deep understanding of technology. Our PM did Computer Science as a minor or something like that, I think. -
phtthp\" post_id=\"1999972\" time=\"1603428866\" user_id=\"35251:
If have to choose between Literature vs. History,
I think both are useful for GP.Swc\" post_id=\"1999969\" time=\"1603428306\" user_id=\"178585:
[quote=Imp75 post_id=1999959 time=1603424875 user_id=2358]
Personally I feel studying history is more useful for GP or general knowledge. I don't see any relevance of studying physical geog. Human geog is quite easily understood if one reads newspaper regularly.
For Geog, the focus is on the relationship between human and our environment. Given the focus on climate issues, studying of Geog will help in answering GP questions related to climate issues.
Personally I think whether to study History or Geography in upper secondary should depend on personal interest. I personally love History and has a natural curiosity towards how our past impact the world we love in today.
For my DD, I therefore asked her to follow her heart when it comes to choosing her subject combi.
which will you choose ?
Literature also help in General Paper ?[/quote]Literature will also help in answering GP paper albeit the usefulness not as direct compared to History or Geog. However, Literature is probably the one that is hardest to score if the interest is not there. Even with strong interest, sometimes might still not get the As. Literature requires one to have an extremely strong command of the English language, very sensitive to the nuances of words and strong critical and analytical thinking to draw the comparison between the themes in the text to real world issues. -
OT: .zeit is back 🥳
@phtthp. For your consideration of humanities as well... & literature - depends on which books you'd be made to study?
I'd agree with doodbug that it's a bonus if schools can be more flexible in accommodating students' choices, etcetera.
[quote]Doesn't like reading - I think better avoid History.
If the O level syllabus is anything to go by, I think Geog has more structured questions. History has more essay writing than Geog.[/quote]It does seem that HI has more readings+ details to sift through, more aggressive writing of answers, less certainty of whether you have a convincing piece to score a higher grade...
[quote]Both my kids opted for History. We let them choose. Not sure if my DD will get her choice though.[/quote]My dc1 is (sufficiently, cohort-wise) stronger in English, abhors humanities, delights in facts, took upper sec GE. My dc2 adores a good tale, seems to enjoy persuasive writing (was practicing HI mock papers everyday the week before eoy 😳), takes HI. -
My impression is that if we picture facts - argumentation on a scale, History involves a greater argumentation component than Geography.
I would say for both, the child’s interest in the syllabus content is important (beyond just looking at the exam format and skills requirements). If for example, 50% of the History syllabus is (hypothetically) on Vietnam, and there is zero interest, then I think maybe it is better to avoid it.
And I think IP schools do have some latitute in crafting their curriculum in Upper Sec Humanities. -
floppy\" post_id=\"1999951\" time=\"1603422586\" user_id=\"97579:
TBH I don’t disagree with your statement at alldoodbug\" post_id=\"1999948\" time=\"1603422346\" user_id=\"13281:
Haha, must be an occupation hazard for me as hubby and I are both Econs grads, albeit from different universities (and different degree type). The BSc, BA and B Soc Sci are not definitive, one should look at the course content before deciding if the programme is for you.
Entry requirements is one thing, but whether the degree programme is hugely quantitative or not, is another. (Generally speaking, if 80% of assessment and syllabus is reading and/or essay based, the maths orientation is not as heavy.) One can easily refer to the websites of the programmes to see how quantitative the programmes are. I had a quick glance at the Cambridge BA programme.
As a discipline (I've been following it the past 25 years), Economics generally was not quantitative in the past, the way it is now. Notwithstanding, the emphasis on quantitative methods in social sciences has grown over the past 2 to 3 decades.
I like to think every discipline brings about useful intellectual training. We needn't be unnecessarily bias for or against a quantitative field, or not. Leaders come from different backgrounds.
I just disagree with the statement that “majority of our leaders are humanities major” without the necessary data to back one up.
https://postimg.cc/K1PFgD2W
These are what I gathered from a Internet. -
From Sociology major to Data Science programmer. What you major in at A levels/Uni need not “fix” your path for life. In fact we need more versatile people rather than one-trick ponies.
https://www.ricemedia.co/culture-people-sociology-graduate-to-data-science-programmer/?fbclid=IwAR1TZn3fLxgSSSjW_baZHBoQrT6SzdVATs5ifebHw_9uyxhHPD5xNYgp7YI -
doodbug\" post_id=\"1999939\" time=\"1603420641\" user_id=\"13281:
Don't be misled by the Oxbridge first degree being a BA. That's historical, not because of the content of the courses. I know people with BA in Maths, Physics, Biochem, Engineering...
It depends. In Oxford and Cambridge, Economics is a BA programme (and not BSc or B Soc Sci). You can get away with little Math and it would probably not be accurate to describe the programme as maths-based. It is similar in Liberal Arts Colleges for Economics majors.
Even in my day, mid-80s, (and many friends took Econs), Econs was already quite mathematical, and is now much more so (my daughter is studying Econs now). An A in H2 Maths is a prerequisite, and they do a lot of Econometrics. -
Our time, lots of Economics degrees in UK had no compulsory econometrics requirements.
The maths pre-requisite was there, as it is for Engineering or Science programmes. But in terms of the Econs degree programme itself, the proportion of maths in the Economics degrees for both my hub and me, was not intensive. (For my hubby, one could get away with zero Econometrics.) For me, I estimate the quantitative component was about 1/4. This is quite different from a Physics degree for example.
You are right that the BA nomenclature is historical for many UK universities. -
bbbay\" post_id=\"1999985\" time=\"1603433317\" user_id=\"175278:
TBH I don’t disagree with your statement at allfloppy\" post_id=\"1999951\" time=\"1603422586\" user_id=\"97579:
[quote=doodbug post_id=1999948 time=1603422346 user_id=13281]Haha, must be an occupation hazard for me as hubby and I are both Econs grads, albeit from different universities (and different degree type). The BSc, BA and B Soc Sci are not definitive, one should look at the course content before deciding if the programme is for you.
Entry requirements is one thing, but whether the degree programme is hugely quantitative or not, is another. (Generally speaking, if 80% of assessment and syllabus is reading and/or essay based, the maths orientation is not as heavy.) One can easily refer to the websites of the programmes to see how quantitative the programmes are. I had a quick glance at the Cambridge BA programme.
As a discipline (I've been following it the past 25 years), Economics generally was not quantitative in the past, the way it is now. Notwithstanding, the emphasis on quantitative methods in social sciences has grown over the past 2 to 3 decades.
I like to think every discipline brings about useful intellectual training. We needn't be unnecessarily bias for or against a quantitative field, or not. Leaders come from different backgrounds.
I just disagree with the statement that “majority of our leaders are humanities major” without the necessary data to back one up.
https://postimg.cc/K1PFgD2W
These are what I gathered from a Internet.[/quote]![](\"https://i.imgur.com/DYyg3z2.png\")
https://i.imgur.com/DYyg3z2.png\">
-
slmkhoo\" post_id=\"2000004\" time=\"1603443011\" user_id=\"28674:
I would say that most Economics degrees today have a greater quantative requirement AND degree component. Look through the course structure and curriculum to determine if it is a balance one is comfortable with. Do not make assumptions either way as Economics can be drastically different across institutions. A lot of Econs majors who choose a super quantitative path. Some others, choose a more Public Policy or Economic History path.
Don't be misled by the Oxbridge first degree being a BA. That's historical, not because of the content of the courses. I know people with BA in Maths, Physics, Biochem, Engineering...doodbug\" post_id=\"1999939\" time=\"1603420641\" user_id=\"13281:
It depends. In Oxford and Cambridge, Economics is a BA programme (and not BSc or B Soc Sci). You can get away with little Math and it would probably not be accurate to describe the programme as maths-based. It is similar in Liberal Arts Colleges for Economics majors.
Even in my day, mid-80s, (and many friends took Econs), Econs was already quite mathematical, and is now much more so (my daughter is studying Econs now). An A in H2 Maths is a prerequisite, and they do a lot of Econometrics.
Economics as a major in a Liberal Arts College is going to be very different from Economics at MIT, for example
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