ckew:

Thanks very much to crusader for giving us the fuller picture and for writing to the school for the all inclusive request.

No worries.

In the end, MGS also had twins. ACPS topped it by having triplets (from what \"mummy bear\" had shared elsewhere).

So with all 3 Methodist schools having the exact no of parents and places - MOE had to do the sensible thing by waiving balloting.

What a perfect match! What an amazing coincidence! Congrats to all.

Cheers

sglady:

Erm... Last year, I checked with the admin staff whether our application has to be in their system by 4.30pm. They told me that so long if we reach before 4.30pm, they will have to register us in the system. That's what I was told.

Thanks for sharing.

In your case by the time you arrived, your de-registration had most likely been updated in MOE's system. As such you were eligible to register.

Not so for the last applicant in ACJS as staff could not have proceeded with registration as his de-registration in PS was still pending. The chap arrived on time but was not allowed to register until de-registration was updated.

And rightly so.

Had it been otherwise, imagine the uproar from the other parents (who had registered earlier, some a day earlier) and were waiting anxiously in the JS AVA Room for the 4.30 deadline to expire with the magic number they were praying/waiting for - No. 47.

My queue no was 48 when I registered. And all 48 got in. 48 turned out all right after all.



Cheers

mummy bear:

I believe ACSP had triplets registering in phase 2B

Thanks for sharing.

What amazing odds.

MGS, ACJS, and now ACPS (all Methodist schools too) - no balloting because applicants (involving twins/triplets) exceeded vacancies by the exact number required.

Cheers

pirate:

crusader:

Thanks for sharing.


The basis for not conducting the ballot in MGS and ACJS it that if balloting were to take place it would be unfair to the parents of singletons as the twins would be guaranteed a place regardless of whether the twins are drawn earlier or last which is not the case for singletons.

So in the case of ACJS, there were 47 vacancies, 48 boys (including twins). As twins would be assigned 1 common ballot number, there would be 47 numbers.

If twins were drawn say from the 1st to the 46th try, balloting would have to stop as all 47 places would be filled. If the twins were drawn last, there would be 48 places.

In short the twins are guaranteed a place whether they are drawn earlier or last, while singletons are guaranteed a place if and only if the twins are drawn last (which is extremely remote).

Balloting cannot proceed because it would then be an unlevel playing field.

The MGS and ACJS scenarios are extremely rare, where vacancies were exceeded by just 1 slot because of the twins.

MOE made the right call not to have balloting.

Cheers.

MOE's call (if it was indeed MOE's call) may be fair to the singletons in Phase 2B, but it is unfair to those in phase 2C. That extra place should not have been taken from phase 2C. It should just have been an extra place created to cater to that rare scenario. This is yet another example of MOE officials failing to see the bigger picture.

Yes, I agree that an extra place should have been allocated without reducing the vacancies in later phases.

In fact, the ideal scenario should be that whenever non-singletons are drawn (where applicants exceed vacancies by more than 1) or where balloting is waived as in the MGS scenario, the extra space(s) required should be created without diluting the pool in later phases.

Cheers

ChiefKiasu:

pirate:

[quote=\"ChiefKiasu\"]I believe the context is something like this.

Say the number of vacancies is 50
The number of parents applying with 1 child is 49.
One parent has 1 set of twins.
So total number of places needed is 51
But in a ballot situation, the parent with the twin will choose to submit only 1 ballot with both names in it.
So the total number of balls in the thingy will be 50, not 51.
So whether we ballot or not, every one of the 50 families will get a place.
So no need to ballot lor.

No, it doesn't work like this.
There are 50 balls and 50 vacancies, but 51 places needed.
If the first ball that rolled out belonged to the twins, there would be 48 places left and 49 balls left in the cage, ie. 1 kid will be balloted out.
Likewise, if the twins' ball was the 2nd ball to fall out, or the 3rd... and so on and so forth.
Only if the twins' ball was the last to fall out would 51 places be taken up at the ballot.
The chance that the twins' ball would be the last to fall out is actually very slim.
Cannot anyhow take shortcut, otherwise it is not fair to the people in the next phase.

Hmmm... I believe you are right! Good point. This is deserving of further clarification with MOE.[/quote]Thanks for sharing.

The basis for not conducting the ballot in MGS and ACJS it that if balloting were to take place it would be unfair to the parents of singletons as the twins would be guaranteed a place regardless of whether the twins are drawn earlier or last which is not the case for singletons.

So in the case of ACJS, there were 47 vacancies, 48 boys (including twins). As twins would be assigned 1 common ballot number, there would be 47 numbers.

If twins were drawn say from the 1st to the 46th try, balloting would have to stop as all 47 places would be filled. If the twins were drawn last, there would be 48 places.

In short the twins are guaranteed a place whether they are drawn earlier or last, while singletons are guaranteed a place if and only if the twins are drawn last (which is extremely remote).

Balloting cannot proceed because it would then be an unlevel playing field.

The MGS and ACJS scenarios are extremely rare, where vacancies were exceeded by just 1 slot because of the twins.

MOE made the right call not to have balloting.

Cheers.

Thanks for update.


The lady in question decided not to proceed with registration at ACJS as she had already secured a place in SJI Jr for her son. She could also see the anxious look in all the other parents’ eyes. It was very gracious of her and everyone in the AVA room in ACJS applauded in appreciation when she announced her decision. She was still in ACJS when I left at 4.35 pm. So the lady who was the last applicant in ACPS is someone else.

In the meantime, the mommy who withdrew from ACPS must have been the wife of Applicant No. 73 (the last applicant) in ACJS who was making frantic calls to his wife to check whether she had actually deregistered as records in MOE have not been updated and he could not proceed to register at JS.

Deregistration was only updated in the MOE system shortly after 4.27 pm (which was announced) - truly a "last minute" deregistration in every sense. What a close shave! Had deregistration not been updated by 4.30 pm (less than 3 minutes away) but thereafter, the parents would have successfully deregistered from PS but be unable to register for JS.

Brinksmanship is dicey- the lag time between paper work to deregister and deregistration reflected in the MOE system is affected by so many other factors beyond one’s control e.g. other applicants waiting their turns, staff tending to other applicants, time it takes for system to be updated, bandwidth, laptop speed.

But all’s well that ends well. Congrats to successful parents in MGS, PS and JS.

Cheers.

I emailed the principal last evening to consider admitting all 48 (without reducing the 46 set aside for Phase 2C) on the basis that the 48 included twins, and so as not to disappoint the one unsuccessful applicant. I also shared the hard work put in by her team in updating the breakdown by distance.


Mrs Koh rang me this morning and she shared MOE’s strict policy of limiting places to 270. I then shared that in this unique situation where you have 48 applicants with 1 set of twins holding 1 ballot slip, the twins are guaranteed a place whether they are drawn earlier or last (at the 47th draw).
That would not be a level playing field.

I told her that there are more pros than cons in admitting all 48. Both Phase 2B 1km applicants and Phase 2C applicants would be happy - Phase 2C because of 1 less applicant. She then said that she would check with MOE and share my views.

Having spoken with her, I find her very friendly and personable. Wonderful principal to sort things out so promptly with MOE. The school is fortunate to have her and her team.

I was ecstatic to get a call from the school half an hour ago to confirm that all 48 would be admitted.

For those who were not at the school yesterday, we must also remember and thank the parent who lives within 1 km but who pulled out. Had she gone ahead, there would be 49 applicants and there would be balloting.

My congratulations to the successful applicants. To the unsuccessful applicants, I hope your sons get in under Phase 2C.

For ACJS, there are 48 applicants within 1 km but only 47 vacancies in Phase 2B.


Not sure if 48 applicants include twin boys. If twins are included and have only 1 ballot slip, then 47 and not 48 ballot slips will be drawn.

Appears odd to put in 47 slips for 48 applicants to ballot for 47 vacancies. How is ballot conducted?

Should there even be balloting?

Can principal exercise discretion to admit all 48 if and since the 48 include twins?

Thanks for your welcome.


Were you featured on TV recently?

Cheers

Crusader

Hi everyone,


I’m a father of 2. I have a 9 year old girl who is in P3 and a 6 year old who is in K2.

This is a great site with so much useful info.

Cheers,

Crusader