KiasuParents - Parenting in Singapore

If your kids are qualified for IP but you opt for the O level route. Why do you make that decision ?

For me, I may want my child to go via the Poly route as I find that it may be more suitable for him than A level.

I'm an IP student myself, and I think that IP is much better.
1. There is more exposure to different kind of activities/enrichment. In HCI, there is such thing called Projects Competition, where students get to do a project by themselves (even service learning).
2. Less stress. When the pupils are all busy preparing for their exams, we still continue to do enrichment.
3. No worries about O level score. We don't take the O levels, and have : guaranteed entry to a quality JC, so its considered to be "choosing your JC before your sec school.
4. IP schools also generate more competition between kids, cause they are used to being the best, and they would work even harder to be better.

Of course, there are flaws:
Without O levels, they would integrate into the JC although they don't deserve it anymore.

However, I still feel that the IP is better than O levels

Actually, I think no right or wrong answer.

Both route eventually leads to A Level

xxjustakidxx wrote: 1. There is more exposure to different kind of activities/enrichment. In HCI, there is such thing called Projects Competition, where students get to do a project by themselves (even service learning).

even the 'o' level route also a lot of activities / enrichment / projects.

IP or non-IP, it is subjective and really depends on the student's aptitude / attitude / etc.

Yes, really depends on personality, attitude and learning style. If you believe your kid will thrive better in a more structured learning environment, then I think "O" level route is better suited. jmho.

The most important difference between IP and O-Level is the spread of syllabus, especially in Sec-3 and Sec-4. IP students get 4 years to study the full Secondary Syllabus. O-level students get only 3.5 year to study the full Secondary Syllabus. The last half of O-level year is spent on revision, preparing for O-level.

Some may think that half a year does not really make any difference in learning and grading. In actual fact it does make significant difference. Reason being that the O-level is testing mostly on the leanings in Sec-3 and Sec-4. This makes the Sec-3 year exceptionally challenging as the dosage is 2/3 of the combine of Sec-3 and Sec-4 syllabus. For the IP students, they study equal amounts in both Sec-3 and Sec-4.

As far as I know, all IP teachers, IP students and their parents would say that IP is better than O-Level. It is interesting to note that in our present education system; only the bright students are offered IP. In reality, it is the not-so-bright students that need this system more as it would allow them to tackle their secondary syllabus better by spreading it out more evenly. Let’s hope that one day our education system is improved to allow the not-so-bright students to also opt for IP, rather than struggling hard in their last 18 month of secondary education.

Bentan wrote:The most important difference between IP and O-Level is the spread of syllabus, especially in Sec-3 and Sec-4. IP students get 4 years to study the full Secondary Syllabus. O-level students get only 3.5 year to study the full Secondary Syllabus. The last half of O-level year is spent on revision, preparing for O-level.

Some may think that half a year does not really make any difference in learning and grading. In actual fact it does make significant difference. Reason being that the O-level is testing mostly on the leanings in Sec-3 and Sec-4. This makes the Sec-3 year exceptionally challenging as the dosage is 2/3 of the combine of Sec-3 and Sec-4 syllabus. For the IP students, they study equal amounts in both Sec-3 and Sec-4.

As far as I know, all IP teachers, IP students and their parents would say that IP is better than O-Level. It is interesting to note that in our present education system; only the bright students are offered IP. In reality, it is the not-so-bright students that need this system more as it would allow them to tackle their secondary syllabus better by spreading it out more evenly. Let’s hope that one day our education system is improved to allow the not-so-bright students to also opt for IP, rather than struggling hard in their last 18 month of secondary education.

A most insightful post, Bentan! Thank you.

Bentan wrote:The most important difference between IP and O-Level is the spread of syllabus, especially in Sec-3 and Sec-4. IP students get 4 years to study the full Secondary Syllabus. O-level students get only 3.5 year to study the full Secondary Syllabus. The last half of O-level year is spent on revision, preparing for O-level.

Some may think that half a year does not really make any difference in learning and grading. In actual fact it does make significant difference. Reason being that the O-level is testing mostly on the leanings in Sec-3 and Sec-4. This makes the Sec-3 year exceptionally challenging as the dosage is 2/3 of the combine of Sec-3 and Sec-4 syllabus. For the IP students, they study equal amounts in both Sec-3 and Sec-4.

As far as I know, all IP teachers, IP students and their parents would say that IP is better than O-Level. It is interesting to note that in our present education system; only the bright students are offered IP. In reality, it is the not-so-bright students that need this system more as it would allow them to tackle their secondary syllabus better by spreading it out more evenly. Let’s hope that one day our education system is improved to allow the not-so-bright students to also opt for IP, rather than struggling hard in their last 18 month of secondary education.

But if you allow the lower end of the so-called not-so-bright student to do IP, wouldn't they fail if you subject them to more "things" to do ?

Bentan wrote:As far as I know, all IP teachers, IP students and their parents would say that IP is better than O-Level. It is interesting to note that in our present education system; only the bright students are offered IP. In reality, it is the not-so-bright students that need this system more as it would allow them to tackle their secondary syllabus better by spreading it out more evenly. Let’s hope that one day our education system is improved to allow the not-so-bright students to also opt for IP, rather than struggling hard in their last 18 month of secondary education.

Not sure about this cos I heard some parents pulled their kids out from IP because they felt it's not for them. I was reading somewhere in another forum on discussion about how O levels better prepare them for A levels Maths than IP. So I think it's really really dependent on a lot of factors....

As far as I know...removing an exam at "O" level removes the "exam-smart" factor in children handling examinations. But does that matter? For my personality, it does not. When at work, it is work smart, not exam smart.