ManU123:

The top Malay student is Victoria School's Muhammad Amirul Haqim Ghazali, who scored nine A1s.


Following his two older siblings, he took Chinese as a second language.

While he admits it was difficult, he said it was sheer hard work and tenacity that earned him his distinction.

Another challenge - keeping his spirits up after his father's illness last year.

\"When my dad had a heart attack, it adversely affected me. It spurred me on to have an ambition to become a heart surgeon, not only to help my family but other people who are stricken with this illness,\" he said.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1103728/1/.html

i was scratching my head - especially these few years not many VS O level top scorers nation wide.... and seemingly some schools with lesser COP than VS can have more \"top scorers\" than VS...

then i remembered from VS's wikipedia page, it states that 30% of VJC's IP intake (from sec 3 onward's) comes from VS boys... VJC started their from sec 3 onwards IP scheme since 2005 i think but that also means currently/formerly a majority of VS 's cream of the crop after 2 years in VS will proceed into VJC as sec three and didnt take part in O level (before the new VS-Cedar-VJC IP programme in future)...

i think many of the top end boys already skipped O level and went on to VJC or maybe other IP JCs/ schs....

with VS-Cedar-VJC future IP relationship... VS and Cedar top end students will again skip O level and lesser chance of them appearing as top students in O level in future...., i.e. only left those VS and Cedar students not doing IP (those not as ultra good / not so heavenly academic wise ones) will do O levels ...

some links to discuss why the Times Higher Education (THE) ranking have many flaws and should not be used as a good indicator of universities' actual standing in the world


the SHJT-ARWU ranking started unofficially in 1998 or 1999 but almost every year.... not many UK universities are ranked in the SHJT-ARWU ranking in top 50 and even lesser in top 20.... thats is a probable reason why THE and the british started the THE ranking.... somehow \"bizarrely\" in THE , those from Commomwealth nations like UK,Australia and S'pore ALL did AMAZINGLY MUCH better relatively to their USA counterpart when compare with ARWU ... much more UK and non USA universities showed up in top 50 and top100 of the THE or THE-QS rankings : mostly due to some PEER REVIEWS and \"subjective surveys\" that somehow skew the results positively for UK and those NON USA universities... including Local Unis like NUS and NTU....

http://www.trinitynews.ie/index.php/opinion/10-editorial/195-trinitys-world-ranking-has-risen-but-the-system-is-flawed-

http://blog.beerkens.info/index.php/2007/03/qs-and-flawed-rankings/

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/08/rankings

u check urself, i think they r affiliated to SAJC… so can have 2 bonus 2 points if choose saJC as 1st choice JC

INNOVATE:

All those who keep harping about 'shared culture' are still having the mindset of living in the previous era. In today's context and more importantly going to the future, executives and public servants need to have a balanced view and helicopter vision to be effective. MOE is wise to bring them together.


If the principal and board of SCGS feel a high degree of uncertainity on this occassion, they would have asked to join SJI, another established sch with a rich history and also a close neighbour. Surely all alternatives and options must had been debated at the board of SCGS before they accepted MOE's initiative. This include all points outlined earlier in this forum.

Hi, my main concerns are the importance of Continuation of schools’ brand/name, culture and school spirit; (also the benefits/power/trust of an established school brand). ‘similar or shared cultural’ is in comparison just a related secondary issue – only relevant when discussing on partnering schools together or to feeding into JC. Somehow my concerns had been misrepresented as solely about “shared culture”. I dont think i am harping about ‘shared culture’ :roll:

You mentioned ‘All those who keep harping about 'shared culture' are still having the mindset of living in the previous era’, which anybody can only logically think that you believe the newer IP scheme will bring about LESS ‘share OR/AND continuous’ culture as compared to the currently still ongoing O level + JC system of 4 years secondary + 2 years JC – previously also adopted by JCs and schools that then turned IP.

Isnt it obvious that with IP, most IP schools can only have MORE ‘share and continuous’ culture and school spirit… NOT less? Starting with schools like Dunman High, SJI and RVHS, NJC and TJC… all having a continuous 6 year education in the exact same compound…. Need not even transfer to a school/JC with affiliated/partnership name or relation.
( Lets for a moment totally ignore whether share/continuous culture is FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE )

Then for those IP JCs partnering with affiliated schools, MOE only stated JCs (with IP) must take at least 20% students from their NON IP affiliated school, it essentially mean that JC with IP programme could end up with up to 80% overwhelming majority of students from their affiliated IP secondary schools: more and increasing RI(JC), HCI(JC) and VJC students will be from RI,RGS,HCI(sec),NYGS,VS and CGS…. making the JC section’s culture less diverse and more uniform and related to their affiliated/partner secondary school…. [ AS compared to previous situations where top students of many secondary schools ended up in various top JCs, hence while culture and school spirit are indeed influenced by affiliated secondary schools like RI, Chinese High, VS… it would not be considered as “overwhelmed by” these affiliated schools.]

With all other Schools and JC remaining unchanged still offering O and A levels as per usual, this obviously mean that OVERALL, schools and JCs will in the future become MORE ‘shared and continuous’ in terms of school culture and spirt and in the future, with this latest extension of IP schemes in 2010.

CHS-SNGS-SCGS feeder into new JC seems the only IP school that is going against the IP norm, which seems not much different from existing non IP system (apart from the seamless curriculum you and others had mentioned). Of course, it is up to the parents and students to choose which method or system they prefer, there are pros and cons in every method. Which hopefully you can think of more for the information/guide of parents and students.

As for why and how SCGS didn’t partner with SJI which I believe they should, we can only speculate since we are not insiders: could it be SJI prefer to do it alone and have a more catholic/mission school culture…. , the principals OR schools advisory councils don’t see eye to eye on some issues etc…, not necessarily that something is not done because we assume people involved must have considered all factors and decided it is no good and not necessary.

We also need to understand and consider the fact that principals and MOE may have their constraints and difficulties and probably a more ideal outcome may need to be compromised because of practical concerns. Some principals may also adopt a more practical approach to issues, downgrading the concerns on school spirit and culture, focusing in methods which they believe to be in the short run would be more helpful to school results and other measurable outcome, which are tangible prove of their worth to their superiors in MOE.

As for the time frame issue on how long or detailed those involved had planned through, we have already discussed and mentioned earlier, hence I will not restate them again. Thank you

WeiHan:

I have read everybody's posts. There are basically not many points. Your point is just basically the three schools is not a good mix and they cannot continue their unique culture. To avoid long winded post, I did not requote all the posts but don't mean that I have not read them.


Another new point. Why can't we see that all three schools have their share of culture continuation and brand name in the new JC.

I see that you are very concerned about name. Actually....I think even if RJC is called Bishan JC but still affiliated to RI, they will still continue to excel. The same reasoning goes to Hwa Chong, even if they are called Bukit Timah JC. The same goes to the new Catholic Nicks Chinese Gals JC. It depends on how well these feeder schools students perform. Unless you are arguing that bcos of the \"culture continuation\" and \"brand name\" \"problem, these students will all quit at sec 4 to join other JCs.

Of course I won’t be claiming that WeiHan had not read earlier postings / exchanges just because WeiHan did not requote comments from others or myself; it is the seeming irrelevance of WeiHan’s questions to the context of points others and myself had already mentioned and discussed about.

Despite that, I also replied WeiHan and on his earlier comments on “HCJC and VJC previously also taking in students of other top schools”, despite this has not much relation with my concerns regarding aspects of the current IP programmes - which should be a 6 years “through train” – therefore ideally should be as continuous and seamless as much as possible in ALL ASPECTS – be it curriculum, school spirit / culture and brand name …. IP is supposed to be different from the (current) 4 year secondary + 2 year JC format (of course this was PREVIOUSLY adopted by top JCs like HCJC, VJC, RJC).

WeiHan’s lack of understanding what others had discussed and implied that I support current status quo in JC and earlier mentioning of NYGS isn’t from the Hwa Chong family are smoking gun evidences and clearly indicated that WeiHan simply jump in and fire away without reading what others had already discussed

My key points are the importance of Continuation of schools’ brand/name, culture and school spirit; (also the benefits/power/trust of an established school brand). ‘similar culture’ is in comparison just a related secondary issue – especially relevant when only discussing on partnering schools together or to feeding into JC. Somehow my concerns had been misrepresented as just about similar culture or “similar cultural continuation”.

I first hypothetically posed the question of would RJC be so successful if it were just called Bishan JC and NOT affiliated and NOT having feeder students from RI and RGS; the answer is obvious and a no brainer. WeiHan replied saying it would make no difference so long RI is still affiliated. However, to realistically compare or relate to with the CHS/SNGS/SCGS feeding into new JC scenario in our real world, questions parents and students likely asking or thinking could be:

1.how pointless and probably laughable when RI (or any school) is affiliated to and feeds to a JC but yet CANNOT be called Raffles JC ? (and also think it from angle of parent, students from SCGS, CHS or SNGS in relation to their new JC “affiliated to them ”)

2. Will as many top end students be still willing to enter Sec1 of RI had their JC for IP or JC classes is simply named Bishan JC AND SOMEHOW this Bishan JC also receives IP students from Catholic High School and SNGS instead of RGS .... 2 rather different Top catholic ‘chinese language focused’ schools with different brand name, culture and school spirit from RI/RGS.

3. Would Bishan JC be as successful had it been without RGS (since WeiHan mentioned only RI is affiliated to Bishan JC, without a word about RGS).

Dear all

Here is a list that includes only some of the more commonly heard of Universities with some prestige that we Singaporeans may have heard of [majority from English speaking countries starting from rank of 20 and above but also including some from Asia/Europe] …. The more reputable ones so that we know how they stand relative to one another.

Hope that parents or students understand that we have to see things in perspective: while more US Universities are in top 500 ranking, it DEFINITELY does NOT mean ANY USA UNIVERSITIES will out do/out perform universities from other countries like UK, Australia, Canadian, S’pore. E.g. U of Leeds (UK), U of Western Australia i.e. UWA (Australia) and NUS out rank Dartmouth College of USA … one of US’s Ivy League colleges (albeit smaller of the Ivy League)

NOTE: I personally feel that ‘Government link universities’ like NUS, Australian National University (ANU) and NTU (NTU is outside top 300) have UNFAIR advantage over then rest because they receive more government related projects in research, more direct investment and help in terms of funds, staff and resources etc… hence I SUBJECTIVELY feel that these Universities should be ranked around 50 positions lower than where they are currently placed

Rank\tName
20 \tTokyo U (Japan)
21\tUniversity College London (UK)
25\tU of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (USA)
26 \tImperial College (UK)
46 \tU of Southern California (USA)
54\tU of Edinburgh (UK)
58\tCarnegie Mellon (USA)
59\tANU - Australian. Nat’l Univ (AUS)
61\tMcGill (Canada)
62 \tU of Melbourne (AUS)
63\tKings College London (UK)
65\tBrown U (USA)
66 \tUppsala U (Sweden)
92\tU of Sydney (AUS)
96\tU of Virginia (USA)
99\tBirmingham U (UK) / Rice U (USA)

101- 150 Range
Emory U (USA), NUS (S’pore), U of Queensland (Australia), U of Western Australia (AUS), U of Leeds (UK)

151 – 200 Range
Dartmouth (USA), Iowa State (USA), Warwick (UK), Mount Sinai Sch of Med. (USA), Monash (AUS), Peking U (PRC), Chinese U of Hong Kong (Hong Kong, PRC), Tsinghua (PRC),
U of New South Wales (AUS), Durham (UK)

201-300 Range
George Washington U (USA) , U of Western Ontario (Canada), Queens University (Canada), U of Notre Dame (USA), Simon Fraser U (USA), Fudan (PRC), Macquarie U (AUS), Shanghai Jiaotong (PRC) U of Adelaide (AUS), U of Auckland (NZ), U of Hong Kong (HK,PRC), U of Otago (NZ), Yonsei U (Korea), London Sch of Economics ( UK), Queen Mary, U of London (UK), U of Lancaster (UK), Newcastle U (UK), U of Reading (UK), U of Leicester, U of St. Andrews (UK)

300 -400 range
Georgetown U (USA), Tulane U (USA), Syracuse (USA), San Diego State U (USA), NTU (S’pore), Waseda U (Japan), U of Dundee (UK), U of Bath (UK), U of Newcastle (AUS), City U of Hong Kong (HK,PRC), Flinders U (AUS), James Cook (AUS), U of Rhode Island (USA), U of Exeter (UK)

CJS:

Daddy

:celebrate: :celebrate:

Now I remember why I used to get confused on how to pronounce the \"IP MAN\" movie...
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yah, my dh who is not a Cantonese pronounced it as \" I P man\". I was :? and told him it should be pronounced as Cantonese \"Yip Mun\" since it is a HK movie.

true... Canto pronounced/SPELLED it as Yip or Ip... for 叶

zacharykieran:

tanbh:

unlike other schools like SNGS who had to somehow join other branded JC under separate brand NAME and join in other top brand JC and under different cultural environment due to NO CHOICE ... hence i am also saying: SNGS/CHS and SCGS dont really benefit as much through this feed into new JC plan.... because their students are already doing the SAME THING NOW/PREVIOUSLY (as you rightly pointed out) ! so i felt it is unjust to these schools and they should have tried other better ways of preserving the school culture and brand of these schools..... do read my earlier posts

Okay maybe it is the use of the passive voice in the media that makes it appear like these kids are being thrown into a totally nameless and brandless abyss of a JC.

But that is not the case! Whatever unique brand of education these 3 institutions have is being transferred to this new school, simply because of the fact that the leadership of these 3 schools will be playing a part in the leadership of this new school!

And this new arrangement is not the same as the status quo. (Kids joining a top brand JC) They DON'T HAVE A CHOICE in the curriculum or programmes of XX TOP BRAND JC because of the fact that they aren't affiliated. But now, these schools HAVE A CHOICE in what programmes the new school will have, because of the fact that THEY DESIGNED IT. For instance, if one of the schools places particular emphasis on community service, it will be transferred to the new school. Now do you not agree this will benefit the students of these 3 schools?

I see you have really strong concerns about the viability of this merger. Perhaps you should consider writing a letter to ST Forum/principals of these 3 schools, then you can receive the official reply on the rationale behind such a decision. (Do publish the official reply here if you do send a letter, thanks)

i rather agree leh on your current points on curriculum , but to me, curriculum is just 1 aspect, i very much prefer them to cling on to their brand name and school culture. letter... no lah, leave it to the old boys and gals and their alumni group...

WeiHan:

tanbh:

[quote=\"WeiHan\"]relax lah everybody...there is no such thing as \"similar culture continuation\" etc......so I don't see any problem with the scgs/chs/sng sec5-6 merger.


Didn't JCs like Hwa Chong, VJC etc already taking students from various top secondary schools in the past? What problem with the culture was there?

i think you had yet viewed carefully what myself and those others with alternate view point had written. IT all depends on the students/parents on the cultural/school spirit continuation issue... and the brand name continuation ....

like what you mentioned, previous top secondary school students went HC or VJC... so you probably assumed \"no issue\"

but isnt that why Dunman high , SJI and RVHS wished to start their own IP with pre-U extensions? so that their students can have continuous or similar cultural /school spirit experience across 6 years.... and graduate at the end with DUNMAN/SJI brand... not let the prestige of producing good students end up in the hands of Raffles,Victoria or Hwa Chong at A LEVEL


unlike other schools like SNGS who had to somehow join other branded JC under separate brand NAME and join in other top brand JC and under different cultural environment due to NO CHOICE ... hence i am also saying: SNGS/CHS and SCGS dont really benefit as much through this feed into new JC plan.... because their students are already doing the SAME THING NOW/PREVIOUSLY (as you rightly pointed out) ! so i felt it is unjust to these schools and they should have tried other better ways of preserving the school culture and brand of these schools..... do read my earlier posts

also it probably is it \"no issue\" probably because they (students) are joining established JC....SO IT DOESN'T MATTER to the students and their parents...

hence i brought up the issue of the 3 schools feed into 1 new JC is : no track record, no established reputation (despite being fed by 3 new IP school), school culture is mixed of CL-catholic school with English Paranakan school.... which others also replied and countered with their different opinions why the new JC could succeed... please read what we already wrote earlier on different views

it can be totally irrelevant to some people, especially if their current school spirit is not really strong or not so emphasized and especially so if JC they entered is already a \"BETTER brand\" OR ESTABLISHED JC .... but i believe it is relevant for many parents or students....

Your reasoning is too long winded. By your reasoning, then no new JCs will be established and there will be no possible new good JCs other than the present few. The world will never change.

DHS and RV's pre-U section is also new. Everything has to start new before they build brand name and establish reputation. DHS lost many of their first batch of graduates to VJC, RJC etc....because it isn't as established but slowly the problem subside as they prove themselves. RJC and Hwa Chong JC didn't shot to greatness overnight too.

Nanyang Girls High isn't from the Hwa Chong family too. They have totally differing independent board. By your reasoning, Nanyang lose much in preserving their own culture too by joining HCI IP. Same goes to RGS?

Lastly, you keep saying many students and parents are concerned about the culture mix but this is only an assertion not yet proven.[/quote]yes, i am known to be a long winded person, cant be help ...
and you clearly had NOT read postS what myself and others with alternate view point had already written/posted, otherwise you are unlikely have written those points in your previous post :roll:

i NEVER EVER said or ever imply no new jcs should be built. i even suggested / hypothesized that CHS-SNGS be feeder into 1 new JC while SCGS can pair up with SJI (or feed into other JC) so these 2 JCs or families can provide more keen competition to those like Raffles, HCI, Victoria, ACS \"gangs\" & possibly change the current situation..... you are not bothered to read so nevermind , please dont put words in my mouth or 'anyhow' guess or assume my \"intention\" or REASONING

regarding DH and RVHS: they indeed start JC classes ie Sec5/6 new but they had LONG established themselves as good secondary school , especially DH.... and the NAME and management is the same and hence culture and school spirit all the same across the 6 years.... therefore i dont see \"established brand\" or continuation of culture issue there , it is relatively easier to built on if you already have good name and people trust you... ( the sec5/6 are under still Same Dunman name... relative to the \"mixed culture\" jc from 3 schools with different cultures and names that do NOT follow on from their sec1-4 years)

Raffles and Hwa Chong JC reputation issued... i am quite amused with any people saying things along the line \"Raffles and HCJC also took time to built up, not done overnight\" ... sure it take some time but
if any people believes that RJC can become so successful (over taking NJC, HCJC etc...) had it been just named Bishan JC without RI , RGS as feeder schools, they should be loony (pardon my insolence). or for same matter, HAD HCJC been called Bukit Timah Area JC without Chinese High as affiliated feeder school and NYGS supplying girls (officially or unofficially before any formal ties were formed)

you do not considered (or know) NYGS / RGS had close cultural background and sport and school ties with HCI / RI ?.... hence there is no or LESSER cultural or school spirit being mixed issue there.... those were the POINTs being discussed or debated - all is to contrast / compare with the new JC with \"mixed & rather opposite culture\", brand NAME not belonging to either CHS, SNGS or SCGS , yet established track record etc... .... which i think is unfair to those 3 schools... hence i also suggested it would be better had only CHS and SNGS feed into the new JC ... since those 2 school are culturally similar ...

i meant to say parents should be concern about CONTINUATION of cultural/school spirit AND ALSO HOW ESTABLISHED is the BRAND NAME ... i apologize for missing to repeat the latter in previous post's last paragraph

Lastly , This forum is no court of law, nobody needs to PROVE anything; those are my subjective opinions which i already reiterated many times.

WeiHan:

relax lah everybody...there is no such thing as \"similar culture continuation\" etc......so I don't see any problem with the scgs/chs/sng sec5-6 merger.


Didn't JCs like Hwa Chong, VJC etc already taking students from various top secondary schools in the past? What problem with the culture was there?

i think you had yet viewed carefully what myself and those others with alternate view point had written. IT all depends on the students/parents on the cultural/school spirit continuation issue... and the brand name continuation ....

like what you mentioned, previous top secondary school students went HC or VJC... so you probably assumed \"no issue\"

but isnt that why Dunman high , SJI and RVHS wished to start their own IP with pre-U extensions? so that their students can have continuous or similar cultural /school spirit experience across 6 years.... and graduate at the end with DUNMAN/SJI brand... not let the prestige of producing good students end up in the hands of Raffles,Victoria or Hwa Chong at A LEVEL


unlike other schools like SNGS who had to somehow join other branded JC under separate brand NAME and join in other top brand JC and under different cultural environment due to NO CHOICE ... hence i am also saying: SNGS/CHS and SCGS dont really benefit as much through this feed into new JC plan.... because their students are already doing the SAME THING NOW/PREVIOUSLY (as you rightly pointed out) ! so i felt it is unjust to these schools and they should have tried other better ways of preserving the school culture and brand of these schools..... do read my earlier posts

also it probably is it \"no issue\" probably because they (students) are joining established JC....SO IT DOESN'T MATTER to the students and their parents...

hence i brought up the issue of the 3 schools feed into 1 new JC is : no track record, no established reputation (despite being fed by 3 new IP school), school culture is mixed of CL-catholic school with English Paranakan school.... which others also replied and countered with their different opinions why the new JC could succeed... please read what we already wrote earlier on different views

it can be totally irrelevant to some people, especially if their current school spirit is not really strong or not so emphasized and especially so if JC they entered is already a \"BETTER brand\" OR ESTABLISHED JC .... but i believe it is relevant for many parents or students....