Secondary 2 Streaming
-
For Humans subjects, including Econs, it’s a fallacy that taking the subject early helps in later stages. Even for a science, Bio, many of my friends tell me that what they learned at O and A level didn’t really help at university level as the depth and content is so different. That’s probably why it’s no longer necessary to have taken A level Bio to study medicine or pharmacy.
My daughter is studying Econs at university now, and she has classmates who didn’t take A level Econs. The university requires a good Maths grade, rather than whether the student has any background in Econs. In her JC, almost all the students who were taking A level Econs had not taken Econs in sec school, and many of them scored A’s. I don’t think students who have taken O level Econs have any particular advantage.
From a "whole-life" perspective, I would say that it’s better for a upper sec student to take a Humans subject different from what he is likely to want to take at A level. This way, he gets to taste and experience a wider range of subjects overall. Of course, he shouldn’t feel obliged to take a subject he dislikes or feels he would do poorly in just for this reason. My daughter took Lit in upper sec, partly out of interest, and partly because she knew she would probably not take it at A level so it was her "last chance" to take the subject. The same reasoning applied to History, but she preferred Lit. We thought that was good planning on her part.
Similarly, my husband and I are grateful for the wider range of subects we took at O level. He went on to do mostly physics and maths, but at least had a taste of Lit and Geog. I went on to take humanities-type subjects, but at least had some basic grounding in the sciences. Having some breadth is a good thing in later life. Nothing studied is ever a total waste. -
slmkhoo:
I agree. I personally prefer a broader range of subjects in secondary school for a whole-life perspective, as you put it. Even in university, I like the idea of having a more liberal arts - type education where you study a wide range of arts and sciences, before deciding on a major or specialization in later years.For Humans subjects, including Econs, it's a fallacy that taking the subject early helps in later stages. Even for a science, Bio, many of my friends tell me that what they learned at O and A level didn't really help at university level as the depth and content is so different. That's probably why it's no longer necessary to have taken A level Bio to study medicine or pharmacy.
My daughter is studying Econs at university now, and she has classmates who didn't take A level Econs. The university requires a good Maths grade, rather than whether the student has any background in Econs. In her JC, almost all the students who were taking A level Econs had not taken Econs in sec school, and many of them scored A's. I don't think students who have taken O level Econs have any particular advantage.
From a \"whole-life\" perspective, I would say that it's better for a upper sec student to take a Humans subject different from what he is likely to want to take at A level. This way, he gets to taste and experience a wider range of subjects overall. Of course, he shouldn't feel obliged to take a subject he dislikes or feels he would do poorly in just for this reason. My daughter took Lit in upper sec, partly out of interest, and partly because she knew she would probably not take it at A level so it was her \"last chance\" to take the subject. The same reasoning applied to History, but she preferred Lit. We thought that was good planning on her part.
Similarly, my husband and I are grateful for the wider range of subects we took at O level. He went on to do mostly physics and maths, but at least had a taste of Lit and Geog. I went on to take humanities-type subjects, but at least had some basic grounding in the sciences. Having some breadth is a good thing in later life. Nothing studied is ever a total waste. -
slmkhoo:
I fully agree. It's good to pursue interests & a balance of subjs to provide good options. As the student matures, so long as they've an enquiring & learning mind to learn & ability to apply themselves, it'll equip them with a variety of analytical skills. The future is requires a lot of ability to search & research for new information & process diff aspects & create new perspective. That'll be the selling point. Building upon what is there & create sth not as yet available but needed/sort after.For Humans subjects, including Econs, it's a fallacy that taking the subject early helps in later stages. Even for a science, Bio, many of my friends tell me that what they learned at O and A level didn't really help at university level as the depth and content is so different. That's probably why it's no longer necessary to have taken A level Bio to study medicine or pharmacy.
My daughter is studying Econs at university now, and she has classmates who didn't take A level Econs. The university requires a good Maths grade, rather than whether the student has any background in Econs. In her JC, almost all the students who were taking A level Econs had not taken Econs in sec school, and many of them scored A's. I don't think students who have taken O level Econs have any particular advantage.
From a \"whole-life\" perspective, I would say that it's better for a upper sec student to take a Humans subject different from what he is likely to want to take at A level. This way, he gets to taste and experience a wider range of subjects overall. Of course, he shouldn't feel obliged to take a subject he dislikes or feels he would do poorly in just for this reason. My daughter took Lit in upper sec, partly out of interest, and partly because she knew she would probably not take it at A level so it was her \"last chance\" to take the subject. The same reasoning applied to History, but she preferred Lit. We thought that was good planning on her part.
Similarly, my husband and I are grateful for the wider range of subects we took at O level. He went on to do mostly physics and maths, but at least had a taste of Lit and Geog. I went on to take humanities-type subjects, but at least had some basic grounding in the sciences. Having some breadth is a good thing in later life. Nothing studied is ever a total waste. -
phtthp:
Since Chemistry is compulsory, his A-level Science subjects are either (Chemistry, Physics) or (Chemistry, Biology).
Are you sure Chemistry is compulsory at A Levels? -
phtthp:
Have you taken H2 Econs in JC before, phtthp?
So, if you happen to be a student studying in any of the above 4 priviledged Secondary schools that do offer O-level Econs (2286), do take up the opportunity : because Econs (2286) can be used to substitute (replace) Humanities (Literature/ Geog / History) subject, especially if you already have the intention (inclination, interest or planning ahead) to take up Econs subsequently in a JC later on, after completing your O-level. Then, this O-level Econs (2286) would have already provided you a good, strong solid foundation towards your H2 Econs in JC. A sharp contrast to many other O-level students who had not yet learnt, nor touched base with Econs, before.
Contrast this situation (scenario) with many O-level candidates : who had studied (mugged) so hard for Literature / Geog / History at GCE-O-level, only to \"throw away\" (dis-continue) what they had learnt in Sec 3 & 4, should they decide to take up H2 Econs, at JC1 and JC2 level, instead.
I don't think it's true that you need Econs O level to do well in Econs A level. A lot of people only spent 1.5 yrs to score an A. -
qms:
Sorry, not compulsory, only for those taking PCMX or BCMX subject combination, where X = one of the Humanities subjects.
Are you sure Chemistry is compulsory at A Levels? -
One doesn’t need to confine oneself to those 3 O level humans subjects.
Besides GHL, there are other humans subjects that can be your 4th contrasting subject in JC. Econs is a popular one that is easily picked up if you have good Econs lecturers and moreover, Econs tuition is rather common nowadays. lol.
There is also China Studies in Eng, ELL (must score A in O level), MTLL, Music (Grade 6 and above?), Art (prevailing prerequisites e.g. portfolio), Third Langs (for those who have done that earlier), TSD and many more that I cannot recall. -
werrelecat:
:imdrowning: He more interested in medicine but he has taken triple science to support that. so now, he wants to take the social studies subject that i doable and easier than the rest and lastly to support law :siam:
Just try for medicine first; if he fails to get in, then try dentistry; then law. lolol!
Triple Science students can do law too. In fact, there were law students who'd done POA (Commerce) in O levels before. -
.zeit:
Last time (during my time, donkey years back), my JC had a lousy Econs Teacher. Also, last time there wasn't any Tuition centre in subject Econs. Not that I heard of, or knew of, back then.
Have you taken H2 Econs in JC before, phtthp?
I don't think it's true that you need Econs O level to do well in Econs A level. A lot of people only spent 1.5 yrs to score an A.
.zeit,
Based on today (current), do u happen to know which JC, has got very good Econs lecturer (tutor) : that really teach the subject content well inside the JC premises itself, Not ask (expect) students to attend external tuition outside, in order to do well at A level that type of lousy, lazy Econs tr ? -
Funz:
-So true. Focus on the stronger subjects, but hedge your risk by having some backups. Some backups can yield positive surprises as you'll never know how the bell curve for your year looks like.I am telling her there are 8-9 subjects but she does not need all of them to get into the course that she wants. Focus on the necessary subjects instead of trying to pass all 8-9 subjects.
... she is leaning towards science related courses... I told her consider focusing on A Math as Math is a subject that you can score as there is no subjectivity or ambiguity. Chances of writing off point is low with Math compared to Lit. Moreover we are not sure what her school's standard is when it comes to Lit. She may be getting As in her school exams but at national level, it may not be equivalent to an A.
Why are the kids tested on so many things? Why can't they be taught all these subjects but choose only to register and take the subjects that is relevant to what they want to pursue? Of course the basics of English and Math is a must but if I am a humanities student, why must I still pass a science and vice versa for that matter.
-I think E and A Maths are easily 'trainable' if one's willing to practise hard. If student's not clear about some concepts, hire a home tutor. lol!
-Lit must depend on her school's choice of texts. Some classics have decades worth of notes online, whereas some new works don't, so that really depends a lot on the Lit teacher's ability to develop solid notes. Not sure if her E Lit std is high at the national level, but just remember there're many OP candidates in the bell curve too, e.g. SNGS, SCGS, CHS, MSHS, ACS, SAS, SJI, CGS, PLMGS, TKGS, etc.
-It's like that in other developed countries-UK, US, EU, HK and Japan...PRC too. They also study about 8-10 subjects to gain breadth of knowldge in middle school. Some countries also have mandatory cores and prerequisites for certain combis.
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