KiasuParents - Parenting in Singapore

[/quote]

Absolutely. In the same line of logic, TJC is lousy ONLY when compared to the top tier JCs. TJC is still a pretty good JC on its own, just that market forces of supply and demand made a high-end mid-tier JC (like NYJC) overtake a low-end high tier JC (TJC). Make sense?[/quote]

[/quote]

Very logical. Totally agreed.

25HMOM wrote:

secschbioteacher wrote:

25HMOM wrote: Absolutely. NYJC is good only when compared to the mid and low-tier JCs for this award and I doubt the principal had explained it to the attendees of the OH.

Absolutely. In the same line of logic, TJC is lousy ONLY when compared to the top tier JCs. TJC is still a pretty good JC on its own, just that market forces of supply and demand made a high-end mid-tier JC (like NYJC) overtake a low-end high tier JC (TJC). Make sense?

2 'CSI' wannabes in the making.

A successful advertisement will result in a surge in demand. Most importantly, nyjc leaders and teachers need to work extra hard to fulfill the pupils', and their parents', expectations upon them.

25HMOM wrote:

secschbioteacher wrote:

25HMOM wrote:
Absolutely. NYJC is good only when compared to the mid and low-tier JCs for this award and I doubt the principal had explained it to the attendees of the OH.

Absolutely. In the same line of logic, TJC is lousy ONLY when compared to the top tier JCs. TJC is still a pretty good JC on its own, just that market forces of supply and demand made a high-end mid-tier JC (like NYJC) overtake a low-end high tier JC (TJC). Make sense?

Woah woah woah, one found the clue and the other broke the code.
Long suspected something was amissed. Puzzle solved.
Picture of cinderella and the wicked step sisters came to mind.

Since nav14 shared that the new tjc principal claimed that they were ranked no. 5 right now, and nyjc principal claimed they were ranked no. 1 in value-added status which means they still appeared in the mid/low-tier charts, we can conclude that the 2014 A level results of tjc is still better than nyjc.

It's utter misleading on the part of nyjc like a story half-told.

secschbioteacher wrote:
Absolutely. In the same line of logic, TJC is lousy ONLY when compared to the top tier JCs. TJC is still a pretty good JC on its own, just that market forces of supply and demand made a high-end mid-tier JC (like NYJC) overtake a low-end high tier JC (TJC). Make sense?

Actually, it only make sense in terms of popularity.

None of the data/analysis is telling us whether TJC is still producing top results despite lower COP or NYJC is producing mid tier results despite higher COP (but hey, because we are Singaporeans, we need to rank them by something).

Besides, using COP as a basis of which JC is better make sense only to a certain point. Differences between JC with COP < 10 are minuscule. Say between TJC and NYJC, it's a difference of 9pts (or 3A1s 3A2s) and 7pts (5A1s 1A2) - that's like, trying to tell all the As students apart. I reckon both JCs are as capable of producing the same results with their existing cohort (so TJC would probably be winning this value added nonsense if it's still going on).

NYJC has probably gained in popularity over the years due to the NEL (surely it can't be their uniform). Being one of the most accessible JC to Sengkang and Punggol, both large and very young estates (with the right school going age group) with limited transportation links, probably helps.

blurblob11 wrote:

25HMOM wrote:

secschbioteacher wrote:
Absolutely. In the same line of logic, TJC is lousy ONLY when compared to the top tier JCs. TJC is still a pretty good JC on its own, just that market forces of supply and demand made a high-end mid-tier JC (like NYJC) overtake a low-end high tier JC (TJC). Make sense?

Woah woah woah, one found the clue and the other broke the code.
Long suspected something was amissed. Puzzle solved.
Picture of cinderella and the wicked step sisters came to mind.

Since nav14 shared that the new tjc principal claimed that they were ranked no. 5 right now, and nyjc principal claimed they were ranked no. 1 in value-added status which means they still appeared in the mid/low-tier charts, we can conclude that the 2014 A level results of tjc is still better than nyjc.

It's utter misleading on the part of nyjc like a story half-told.

Nope, Blurblob. That wasn't what I mean.

Nobody can say that TJC is surely better now or NYJC is surely better now in terms of A level results - nobody have access to these data, except based on hearsay or so called presentations.

Only one thing is confirmed -
(1) It is indeed harder for Sec 4 cohort of 2015 to get into NYJC than TJC, based on cutoff point.

Period. I rest my case.

floppy wrote:

secschbioteacher wrote:
Absolutely. In the same line of logic, TJC is lousy ONLY when compared to the top tier JCs. TJC is still a pretty good JC on its own, just that market forces of supply and demand made a high-end mid-tier JC (like NYJC) overtake a low-end high tier JC (TJC). Make sense?

Actually, it only make sense in terms of popularity.

None of the data/analysis is telling us whether TJC is still producing top results despite lower COP or NYJC is producing mid tier results despite higher COP (but hey, because we are Singaporeans, we need to rank them by something).

Besides, using COP as a basis of which JC is better make sense only to a certain point. Differences between JC with COP < 10 are minuscule. Say between TJC and NYJC, it's a difference of 9pts (or 3A1s 3A2s) and 7pts (5A1s 1A2) - that's like, trying to tell all the As students apart. I reckon both JCs are as capable of producing the same results with their existing cohort (so TJC would probably be winning this value added nonsense if it's still going on).

NYJC has probably gained in popularity over the years due to the NEL (surely it can't be their uniform). Being one of the most accessible JC to Sengkang and Punggol, both large and very young estates (with the right school going age group) with limited transportation links, probably helps.

I think Circle Line (nearest Lor Chuan station) might be a contributory factor too. It might be too far to get to AJC from the Northeast.

TJC lost half of its talent after DHS went "IP" in god knows which year. The top school in the East, DHS, used to feed ~40% of their students to VJC and another ~40% to TJC. Whilst VJC has another good feeder school VS, TJC hasn't (TSS isn't in the same league as VS), hence the brain drain...

emoh wrote:

Careermum wrote: Those who are in scgs sngs chs IP will be as follows:
In Sec 4 now: go EJC at interim Mt Sinai Campus for 2017-2018 ie year 5-6
In Sec 3 now: go EJC at interim Mt Sinai campus for 2018-2019 ie year 5-6
In Sec 2 now: go EJC at interim Mt Sinai campus in 2019 (year 5) & new Bishan campus in 2020 (year 6)
In Sec 1 now: go EJC at new Bishan campus in 2020 (year 5-6)

These students DO NOT SIT FOR O LEVEL, but go EJC DIRECTLY.

EJC & CJC are not related. No sharing of anything.

For scgs sngs chs O lvl students, they can apply for ANY JC via JAE using their L1R5 scores. And that includes EJC from 2017.
So far no mention of any 2 bonus points affiliation of these 3 schools if apply for EJC.

As for CJC, all along there is 2 bonus points for affiliation with Catholic schools which include CHS & SNGS O lvl students.

Para 6 of this letter seems to state no bonus points affiliation for EJC.

http://scgs.edu.sg/newsletter/JointInte ... gramme.pdf

I heard P wants to preserve the quality of their pioneer intakes, so they will keep it trim and exclusive. No bonus points for affiliates. No sympathies. They only want good quality intake.

floppy wrote:

secschbioteacher wrote:
Absolutely. In the same line of logic, TJC is lousy ONLY when compared to the top tier JCs. TJC is still a pretty good JC on its own, just that market forces of supply and demand made a high-end mid-tier JC (like NYJC) overtake a low-end high tier JC (TJC). Make sense?

Actually, it only make sense in terms of popularity.

None of the data/analysis is telling us whether TJC is still producing top results despite lower COP or NYJC is producing mid tier results despite higher COP (but hey, because we are Singaporeans, we need to rank them by something).

Besides, using COP as a basis of which JC is better make sense only to a certain point. Differences between JC with COP < 10 are minuscule. Say between TJC and NYJC, it's a difference of 9pts (or 3A1s 3A2s) and 7pts (5A1s 1A2) - that's like, trying to tell all the As students apart. I reckon both JCs are as capable of producing the same results with their existing cohort (so TJC would probably be winning this value added nonsense if it's still going on).

NYJC has probably gained in popularity over the years due to the NEL (surely it can't be their uniform). Being one of the most accessible JC to Sengkang and Punggol, both large and very young estates (with the right school going age group) with limited transportation links, probably helps.

Agree with you although I feel that the nyjc principal's speech will still impact and influence the decisions of some.

secschbioteacher wrote:
Nope, Blurblob. That wasn't what I mean.

Nobody can say that TJC is surely better now or NYJC is surely better now in terms of A level results - nobody have access to these data, except based on hearsay or so called presentations.

Only one thing is confirmed -
(1) It is indeed harder for Sec 4 cohort of 2015 to get into NYJC than TJC, based on cutoff point.

Period. I rest my case.

No worries secschbioteacher (you are a teacher? ). That was purely my personal view.

blurblob11 wrote:
Agree with you although I feel that the nyjc principal's speech will still impact and influence the decisions of some.

Well, one of the hats that the Principal is wearing is that of a salesman. He/she has to sell koyok to tell you why his/her school is better. We can't be expecting to hear the Principal telling us 101 reasons not to choose the school.