Laura02:

It's precisely this attitude that disturbs me most. This happens not only in law, but also in medicine and other \"good\" faculties. And, of course, among the scholars. It's not so prevalent in the current generation of thirty something and older working adults, but is increasingly apparent in the younger twenty-something adults. This attitude of us vs them attitude. And I am very, very concerned of the future of Singapore.

It's quite different from the past, where there were several good schools, and students from the not so good schools. And generally, it was the latter who, in their working careers, were more hungry for success, more willing to take risk and work harder to succeed.

:goodpost: Why there is such division and attitude? What was the system then versus now that drive this division and attitude.

I am going to be on hibernation mode for some soul searching.

Twinkies:

sinoboy:

[quote=\"bupashu\"]

Yes agree. I think those forummers condemning foreigner scholars posting nice photos of themselves and scolding your parents are a bit overboard too. I dare not refer to anyone specific though. :roll:

This is also not peculiar to foreigner scholars in SG, vise versa.

SG scholars at overseas top uni do make news too.

[/quote]Thank you for reminding.. .. the GEPPER!
:slapshead:

Twinkies:

Melodies:

[quote=\"atutor2001\"]If I may generalize, our children innate ability can be broadly classified into 2 groups \"versatile\" and \"non-versatile\". In Chinese, we can crudely translate it to \"round\" or \"square\".


\"Round\" people are more flexible, looks at things from different angles, can improvise...
\"Square\" people are more rigid, follow rules, seldom explore....

The GEP, IP or mainstream are made up of both groups of children. The percentage of \"Round\" people in GEP and IP is greater than mainstream. Those \"square\" people in GEP and IP will find it harder to catch up, has to put in much more effort.

There are many \"round\" people in the mainstream. Some may even be better than those in GEP or IP. They did not make it because of attitude - no desire to excel. Many parents are aware that their kids are \"round\" people. We are worried that the system has no more place left in IP when their \"round\" child wake up in later years. This is a very valid concern. However, based on my little knowledge of the system, if they do really wake up, there are ample opportunity for them to jump over.

Imho, most misconception that IP children have an unfair advantage arises because we only read about success. Little was published on the hard work that they (don't count those truly gifted - they are from another planet) need to put in. We can only see our kids working hard, producing results (in our opinion, more than adequate) and felt that they deserve to be there. Maybe parents with children doing well should share more on how much effort their kids have put in order to be there. Then we can compare the sacrifice made and not just the results.

We felt that the standard is ridiculous. However, we may not have a choice if we compare with other Asian countries. We then bring out Finland. My belief is our Asian culture is different from theirs. What works for them may not work for us.

If I have a young \"round\" kid now, I will do my best to nurture the correct attitude (must be done before Pr1). Once the attitude is right, tuition may not be a must.

If I have a young \"square\" kid, nurturing the correct attitude must still be done. However, I may let him/her progress at a pace that is comfortable.

:goodpost:
Just sad that those \"round' kids wake up late and only found that all the odds are against them!

Could you share why you think we may not have a choice but to raise the A level standard if we compare with other Asian countries?

Those scholars went oversea, did they find bored?

A good habit to practice, read a full copy of the local or foreign main stream newspaper daily, everything doubtful will fall into places very quickly.[/quote]I can't reconcile le. Those went oversea are our top brains but learning something less mortal than local A levels le..then how to lead the nation to face all the challenges in Asia if this is your point. though good exposure and networking..
Isn't necessary to raise the standard up to master level.

I'm trying to reconciling cause and effect...

atutor2001:

If I may generalize, our children innate ability can be broadly classified into 2 groups \"versatile\" and \"non-versatile\". In Chinese, we can crudely translate it to \"round\" or \"square\".


\"Round\" people are more flexible, looks at things from different angles, can improvise...
\"Square\" people are more rigid, follow rules, seldom explore....

The GEP, IP or mainstream are made up of both groups of children. The percentage of \"Round\" people in GEP and IP is greater than mainstream. Those \"square\" people in GEP and IP will find it harder to catch up, has to put in much more effort.

There are many \"round\" people in the mainstream. Some may even be better than those in GEP or IP. They did not make it because of attitude - no desire to excel. Many parents are aware that their kids are \"round\" people. We are worried that the system has no more place left in IP when their \"round\" child wake up in later years. This is a very valid concern. However, based on my little knowledge of the system, if they do really wake up, there are ample opportunity for them to jump over.

Imho, most misconception that IP children have an unfair advantage arises because we only read about success. Little was published on the hard work that they (don't count those truly gifted - they are from another planet) need to put in. We can only see our kids working hard, producing results (in our opinion, more than adequate) and felt that they deserve to be there. Maybe parents with children doing well should share more on how much effort their kids have put in order to be there. Then we can compare the sacrifice made and not just the results.

We felt that the standard is ridiculous. However, we may not have a choice if we compare with other Asian countries. We then bring out Finland. My belief is our Asian culture is different from theirs. What works for them may not work for us.

If I have a young \"round\" kid now, I will do my best to nurture the correct attitude (must be done before Pr1). Once the attitude is right, tuition may not be a must.

If I have a young \"square\" kid, nurturing the correct attitude must still be done. However, I may let him/her progress at a pace that is comfortable.

:goodpost:
Just sad that those \"round' kids wake up late and only found that all the odds are against them!

Could you share why you think we may not have a choice but to raise the A level standard if we compare with other Asian countries?

Those scholars went oversea, did they find bored?

him4mixer:

First we must establish the fact that there are people who are more intellectually capable than others. This innate ability will naturally cause some ‘unfairness’ in the education. Until we acknowledge this, we will always cry foul in whatever decision MOE makes.


Why HOT skills are not explicitly taught in mainstream schools? Two reasons.

1. Competency of the students. We must agree that there are different levels of students’ academic abilities. At one extreme end, we have students who have even problems remembering facts and details (LOT skills). The other end we have students who can piece different information together (synergise) and make out new information/concept (synthesis), all these characteristics of HOT skills. ‘O’ level exam as the name implies means ‘ordinary’ which caters to the majority of the population. The exam can’t have too many HOT questions or the back-end cohort will suffer. The IP schools were established to cater to those who can handle these HOT skills and thus were removed from the mainstream schools. This allowed the ‘O’ level exam to be still manageable for the majority while we take in the more capable ones and teach them HOT skills. If a capable student chooses to stay in the ‘O’ level track, that’s his/her choice and we should respect that. The student may or may not have lots of catch up to do if he/she goes to a top JC.

2. Competency of the teachers. Not all teachers are capable in the same manner. Some are good in classroom management, some in admin, some in positive influence and some in planning. I agree that not all my colleagues are good at these qualities I’ve listed above but there is one common quality in all of us: academic ability. Gone were the days when we wondered why some of our JC tutors are so xxx… Many of my colleagues graduated with good class honors and above and with a handful from top uni in the world. We have a few who are protégé of some Nobel prize winners. Several hold PhD degrees and have written textbooks for students’ use. Some others in their free time managed to write and publish their own chain of story books. When equipped with the right teaching techniques, we are effective and efficient to teach our students and inspire them to follow us. Unfortunately this is not the case for every school. Efforts to ‘spread’ these teachers to all schools will result in them being ineffective.

How about those late boomer who didn't do well in PSLE but ended up in non-IP schools? They may be intellectually capable than some others in IP schools but are not exposed to HOT skills in non-IP sec schools.

pirate:

Melodies:

Err.. good only if you can make it to get scholarship and oversea university.


Competition! Competition and more competition for local Uni..and only few can make it to those top JCs n get to chose and get all the creams la...

What we need is DSA for university places. :razz: :wrongmove:

Not again! more scheme to provide immunity for competition? :heresmyfish:

slmkhoo:

Melodies:

I have seen many real life cases. To my horror, they are at disadvantage!
When come to local/oversea scholarship application or Oversea University application, those have 7-8 A in A level with very minimum CCA/Sports/leadership activities (other than academics), they may still lose out to those 4 A but involved in and did well in various CCA/Sports/leadership activities.

See, what is the point? :slapshead:

Isn't that good? That those who have achievements outside the purely academic are also valued? And it should lead to students being more well-rounded than just pure muggers, whether in LOT or HOT or whatever direction. And it would seem that wise students should avoid the most popular schools and JCs as leadership and CCA opportunities will be harder to get there. Sounds good to me!

Err.. good only if you can make it to get scholarship and oversea university.

Competition! Competition and more competition for local Uni..and only few can make it to those top JCs n get to chose and get all the creams la...

him4mixer:

In conclusion:


The gap between IP and non-IP JCs is widening. Gone were the days where we could hear students from the lower end JCs making it into the medicine or law. One common joke among my ex-students in the law faculty told me: There are only 2 JCs in the Law faculty; RI(JC) and OJC (other JCs). Even within IP schools, the gap is widening too between the govt and independent IP JCs.

No wonder top JCs are hot potatoes nowadays!
Likewise, NYPS is the super hot potatoes nowadays!
Schools do Make a Difference

concern2:

Melodies:

Ironically, our A level students have no advantage over those from other countries who learned LOT when come to the admission selection for those oversea universities though they have scored A in HOT questions which are equivalent to deg/master level! :slapshead:

:scared: Eye-opener..

I have seen many real life cases. To my horror, they are at disadvantage!
When come to local/oversea scholarship application or Oversea University application, those have 7-8 A in A level with very minimum CCA/Sports/leadership activities (other than academics), they may still lose out to those 4 A but involved in and did well in various CCA/Sports/leadership activities.

See, what is the point? :slapshead:
Please let them get a life!

In short,


Learning HOT skills in GEP program versus learning LOT/NOT skills in mainstreams
Geppers handle PSLE exams better than mainstreamers as there are some HOT questions in PSLE papers. As such, majority of students who have scored 270 and above in NYPS are GEPpers! Spilled-over of HOT materials from GEP to mainstreams does help mainstreams to do well in PSLE. As a result, about 47% P6 pupils in NYPS scored 250 and above.

Learning HOT skills in IP program versus learning LOT/NOT skills in O level
IP students are well trained with HOT skills and hence they are well prepared for A level as compared to their counterparts in non-IP schools. In A level, some of the concepts tested in the papers are equivalent to those in university, and even up in Masters! Students from non-IP schools would have to prepare to take some set back and do catch-up works in order to stand head-to-toe with the IP students as for now.

However, the preparation by the non-IP JC students has improved but LINEARLY. The preparation by the IP schools has improved EXPOTENTIALLY. With the differences in improving rates, are the non-IP JC students able to compete head-to-toes with IP students eventually ? Yet to be witnessed!

Hmmm...........What type of era we are generating now? :yikes: