Any Foreign kid got to Local School (2022)

[Lisafuller]

Right... if I remember correctly, for most schools it's something like 20 points!

[NYY1]

These are the kids that grow up with a very different mindset than their local peers, they know that grades are not everything and take the time to develop themselves holistically. Often times, like you mentioned, they end up doing very well for themselves.

I have learnt a lot from talking to other parents that have kids in all kinds of schools and with a wide range of abilities. While there are many good things about certain circles, sometimes diversity of opinions, attitudes, thoughts, etc are lacking (for both the parents and kids). In some cases, there are families with kids going to very different schools (ballot luck, alumni priority only worked for one kid, different abilities). Often, you see things are not so different, and what matters more is what/how the specific child is doing.

This isn't to say the system is entirely stress free or void of faults. But I think a lot of the issues that come up in certain circles are often self-inflicted; the challenge is that it’s not easy to avoid them and it probably takes a conscious effort to do so (again, for both the parents and kids).

Anyways, it’s all in the past for you guys…

[NYY1]

Obviously there is one major advantage at the secondary level for those who managed to get into a more desirable primary school that has an affiliation with a secondary school… and that comes in the form of a lower cutoff point (COP) on the PSLE for entry. Three of my nephews (who got into ACS) here took advantage of that — they would not have gotten into ACS primary based on the current rules.

I also got my daughter into a more desirable school that had an affiliated secondary, by ut her PSLE score ended up higher than we expected, so did not exercise that. But it’s worth noting that the discounted COP is significant, not just a minor difference.

Obviously there is one major advantage at the secondary level for those who managed to get into a more desirable primary school that has an affiliation with a secondary school… and that comes in the form of a lower cutoff point (COP) on the PSLE for entry. Three of my nephews (who got into ACS) here took advantage of that — they would not have gotten into ACS primary based on the current rules.

I also got my daughter into a more desirable school that had an affiliated secondary, by ut her PSLE score ended up higher than we expected, so did not exercise that. But it’s worth noting that the discounted COP is significant, not just a minor difference.

SMPS/SMSS and the other similar mission schools with affiliation are attractive for many reasons. However, for the above average student (academically speaking), the affiliation COP isn’t worth much. Most jump ship and even at/around the non-affiliated COP there are other choices.

Anyways, I was pointing out something else. First, there are spaces available for foreign students, one just need to look instead of repeating a preconceived notion. Second, there’s no need to make derogatory statements towards what others have. There’s always someone with more that could piss all over those below them. People always want to think what they have is “good enough” but anything less is so inferior. Regardless, many of the kids in these unpopular schools do even better than those who started in more desirable places.

[malcontent]

No point debating about how much difference a more desirable school might make to student outcomes… one thing we agree on NYY1, is that the cream will always rise to the top. This goes back to nature versus nurture, and I always believe nature plays a much bigger role. Could the cream be a bit creamier? Could the non-cream rise a little higher? That’s the nurture part.

[NYY1]

No point debating about how much difference a more desirable school might make to student outcomes… one thing we agree on NYY1, is that the cream will always rise to the top. This goes back to nature versus nurture, and I always believe nature plays a much bigger role. Could the cream be a bit creamier? Could the non-cream rise a little higher? That’s the nurture part.

Where am I debating how much difference a more desirable school might make to student outcomes? I think the following was said. First, there are spaces for foreign students. Next, no need to make derogatory statements about others' schools (just a general way to be polite or respectful). Additionally, despite the perception, many kids in those schools actually do better than some kids that started in more desirable schools.

Absolutely nothing was said about how those students, or any students, would have done somewhere else.

[Lisafuller]

These are the kids that grow up with a very different mindset than their local peers, they know that grades are not everything and take the time to develop themselves holistically. Often times, like you mentioned, they end up doing very well for themselves.

I have learnt a lot from talking to other parents that have kids in all kinds of schools and with a wide range of abilities. While there are many good things about certain circles, sometimes diversity of opinions, attitudes, thoughts, etc are lacking (for both the parents and kids). In some cases, there are families with kids going to very different schools (ballot luck, alumni priority only worked for one kid, different abilities). Often, you see things are not so different, and what matters more is what/how the specific child is doing.

This isn't to say the system is entirely stress free or void of faults. But I think a lot of the issues that come up in certain circles are often self-inflicted; the challenge is that it’s not easy to avoid them and it probably takes a conscious effort to do so (again, for both the parents and kids).

Anyways, it’s all in the past for you guys…

True. Though the trouble is avoiding/overcoming is often tough for the younger ones, which also happens to be their formative years.

And yes, thank goodness it's over. I never did the whole PSLE/A level program but watching my kid do it was stressful enough.

[Lisafuller]

Obviously there is one major advantage at the secondary level for those who managed to get into a more desirable primary school that has an affiliation with a secondary school… and that comes in the form of a lower cutoff point (COP) on the PSLE for entry. Three of my nephews (who got into ACS) here took advantage of that — they would not have gotten into ACS primary based on the current rules.

I also got my daughter into a more desirable school that had an affiliated secondary, by ut her PSLE score ended up higher than we expected, so did not exercise that. But it’s worth noting that the discounted COP is significant, not just a minor difference.

Obviously there is one major advantage at the secondary level for those who managed to get into a more desirable primary school that has an affiliation with a secondary school… and that comes in the form of a lower cutoff point (COP) on the PSLE for entry. Three of my nephews (who got into ACS) here took advantage of that — they would not have gotten into ACS primary based on the current rules.

I also got my daughter into a more desirable school that had an affiliated secondary, by ut her PSLE score ended up higher than we expected, so did not exercise that. But it’s worth noting that the discounted COP is significant, not just a minor difference.

SMPS/SMSS and the other similar mission schools with affiliation are attractive for many reasons. However, for the above average student (academically speaking), the affiliation COP isn’t worth much. Most jump ship and even at/around the non-affiliated COP there are other choices.

Anyways, I was pointing out something else. First, there are spaces available for foreign students, one just need to look instead of repeating a preconceived notion. Second, there’s no need to make derogatory statements towards what others have. There’s always someone with more that could piss all over those below them. People always want to think what they have is “good enough” but anything less is so inferior. Regardless, many of the kids in these unpopular schools do even better than those who started in more desirable places.

Regarding your last line, I just had a thought.

I'm inclined to agree, in that children who attend "unpopular" schools tend to do well for themselves, but I hesitate to say they do better than those who attended more reputable institutions.

Reason being the children from undesirable schools who don't perform as well academically typically pursue more unconventional career paths (media etc) which allows their stories to be heard far more easily than those who succeed in conventional ways. Neither group is better, and the successes themselves are incommensurable.

[Lisafuller]

No point debating about how much difference a more desirable school might make to student outcomes… one thing we agree on NYY1, is that the cream will always rise to the top. This goes back to nature versus nurture, and I always believe nature plays a much bigger role. Could the cream be a bit creamier? Could the non-cream rise a little higher? That’s the nurture part.

I think success is relative to ability. Children of all abilities and backgrounds do their best for themselves.

[NYY1]

Regarding your last line, I just had a thought.

I'm inclined to agree, in that children who attend "unpopular" schools tend to do well for themselves, but I hesitate to say they do better than those who attended more reputable institutions.

Reason being the children from undesirable schools who don't perform as well academically typically pursue more unconventional career paths (media etc) which allows their stories to be heard far more easily than those who succeed in conventional ways. Neither group is better, and the successes themselves are incommensurable.

To clarify, I don't mean students in A universally do better than students in B or vice versa. Just that for an individual student, he/she may be able to do very well, and perhaps, even surpass some of the students that started elsewhere (with more, better, etc).

Anyways, as you say there's a lot of ways to succeed, regardless of academic ability or where one attends any level of schooling. Social development is also important, more and more non-academic aspects are important for success (both within school/uni and the working world).

[malcontent]

No point debating about how much difference a more desirable school might make to student outcomes… one thing we agree on NYY1, is that the cream will always rise to the top. This goes back to nature versus nurture, and I always believe nature plays a much bigger role. Could the cream be a bit creamier? Could the non-cream rise a little higher? That’s the nurture part.

Where am I debating how much difference a more desirable school might make to student outcomes? I think the following was said. First, there are spaces for foreign students. Next, no need to make derogatory statements about others' schools (just a general way to be polite or respectful). Additionally, despite the perception, many kids in those schools actually do better than some kids that started in more desirable schools.

Absolutely nothing was said about how those students, or any students, would have done somewhere else.

The government has stated publicly that only PR/SC students are guaranteed seats in local schools. I think it’s important for parents to understand that they cannot count on getting a seat in a local school. It could factor into decisions on whether to accept an assignment in another country, or whether to accept an assignment here at all. This is why I emphasize the limitation - not to sow seeds of hopelessness, but to ensure the limitation is understood by those who who are facing those decisions. Anyone who is not a SC has another passport with school choices outside Singapore, unless they are stateless.

Some schools are more desired than others, as the P1 registration process clearly illustrates. Many parents care deeply about this. Going back to the expat who is deciding whether to take an assignment elsewhere, they should know that only the least desired schools are potentially available (no guarantee) after locals have their pick. Nobody said they were bad schools, but they are not at the top of anyone’s list. This is not to make anyone feel bad, it’s just the reality here… and it’s very a different system than most countries — so in my mind, it’s good to be aware.

[Lisafuller]

Regarding your last line, I just had a thought.

I'm inclined to agree, in that children who attend "unpopular" schools tend to do well for themselves, but I hesitate to say they do better than those who attended more reputable institutions.

Reason being the children from undesirable schools who don't perform as well academically typically pursue more unconventional career paths (media etc) which allows their stories to be heard far more easily than those who succeed in conventional ways. Neither group is better, and the successes themselves are incommensurable.

To clarify, I don't mean students in A universally do better than students in B or vice versa. Just that for an individual student, he/she may be able to do very well, and perhaps, even surpass some of the students that started elsewhere (with more, better, etc).

Anyways, as you say there's a lot of ways to succeed, regardless of academic ability or where one attends any level of schooling. Social development is also important, more and more non-academic aspects are important for success (both within school/uni and the working world).

Fair, and so long as there is consistent effort, success is always within reach.

And yes, EQ is far more important than IQ in most instances.

[Lisafuller]

No point debating about how much difference a more desirable school might make to student outcomes… one thing we agree on NYY1, is that the cream will always rise to the top. This goes back to nature versus nurture, and I always believe nature plays a much bigger role. Could the cream be a bit creamier? Could the non-cream rise a little higher? That’s the nurture part.

Where am I debating how much difference a more desirable school might make to student outcomes? I think the following was said. First, there are spaces for foreign students. Next, no need to make derogatory statements about others' schools (just a general way to be polite or respectful). Additionally, despite the perception, many kids in those schools actually do better than some kids that started in more desirable schools.

Absolutely nothing was said about how those students, or any students, would have done somewhere else.

The government has stated publicly that only PR/SC students are guaranteed seats in local schools. I think it’s important for parents to understand that they cannot count on getting a seat in a local school. It could factor into decisions on whether to accept an assignment in another country, or whether to accept an assignment here at all. This is why I emphasize the limitation - not to sow seeds of hopelessness, but to ensure the limitation is understood by those who who are facing those decisions. Anyone who is not a SC has another passport with school choices outside Singapore, unless they are stateless.

Some schools are more desired than others, as the P1 registration process clearly illustrates. Many parents care deeply about this. Going back to the expat who is deciding whether to take an assignment elsewhere, they should know that only the least desired schools are potentially available (no guarantee) after locals have their pick. Nobody said they were bad schools, but they are not at the top of anyone’s list. This is not to make anyone feel bad, it’s just the reality here… and it’s very a different system than most countries — so in my mind, it’s good to be aware.

True, and it's an important reality to acknowledge. Moving to singapore with the assumption that you'll be able to enjoy all the benefits of its world renowned school system may leave you very disappointed.

[NYY1]

The government has stated publicly that only PR/SC students are guaranteed seats in local schools. I think it’s important for parents to understand that they cannot count on getting a seat in a local school. It could factor into decisions on whether to accept an assignment in another country, or whether to accept an assignment here at all. This is why I emphasize the limitation - not to sow seeds of hopelessness, but to ensure the limitation is understood by those who who are facing those decisions. Anyone who is not a SC has another passport with school choices outside Singapore, unless they are stateless.

Some schools are more desired than others, as the P1 registration process clearly illustrates. Many parents care deeply about this. Going back to the expat who is deciding whether to take an assignment elsewhere, they should know that only the least desired schools are potentially available (no guarantee) after locals have their pick. Nobody said they were bad schools, but they are not at the top of anyone’s list. This is not to make anyone feel bad, it’s just the reality here… and it’s very a different system than most countries — so in my mind, it’s good to be aware.

Good points and yes, people should be aware. I don't think I've ever said they shouldn't be aware?

Nevertheless, once again I don't think the reply is directly related to what I said. To recap:
#1. There are spaces available for foreign students.
#2. Some of those foreign students are happy to take the spot, and despite being called bottom of the barrel by others, many of the students can do quite well. Possibly, even surpassing some of the other students that started in a more desirable place. I think there are many things that could be reasonably inferred from this, but I haven't listed any of them and have no interest in discussing them.
#3. I never made any statements about how much difference a more desirable school might make to student outcomes. I was wondering if someone thought I did?

Maybe I'm missing something but if you want to address those points, that would be great (or if not, that's fine too). If you want to try and shift the topic to something tangential, there's no need.

[malcontent]

The government has stated publicly that only PR/SC students are guaranteed seats in local schools. I think it’s important for parents to understand that they cannot count on getting a seat in a local school. It could factor into decisions on whether to accept an assignment in another country, or whether to accept an assignment here at all. This is why I emphasize the limitation - not to sow seeds of hopelessness, but to ensure the limitation is understood by those who who are facing those decisions. Anyone who is not a SC has another passport with school choices outside Singapore, unless they are stateless.

Some schools are more desired than others, as the P1 registration process clearly illustrates. Many parents care deeply about this. Going back to the expat who is deciding whether to take an assignment elsewhere, they should know that only the least desired schools are potentially available (no guarantee) after locals have their pick. Nobody said they were bad schools, but they are not at the top of anyone’s list. This is not to make anyone feel bad, it’s just the reality here… and it’s very a different system than most countries — so in my mind, it’s good to be aware.

Good points and yes, people should be aware. I don't think I've ever said they shouldn't be aware?

Nevertheless, once again I don't think the reply is directly related to what I said. To recap:
#1. There are spaces available for foreign students.
#2. Some of those foreign students are happy to take the spot, and despite being called bottom of the barrel by others, many of the students can do quite well. Possibly, even surpassing some of the other students that started in a more desirable place. I think there are many things that could be reasonably inferred from this, but I haven't listed any of them and have no interest in discussing them.
#3. I never made any statements about how much difference a more desirable school might make to student outcomes. I was wondering if someone thought I did?

Maybe I'm missing something but if you want to address those points, that would be great (or if not, that's fine too). If you want to try and shift the topic to something tangential, there's no need.

I believe it’s nuance rather than tangent. One person can say the glass is half empty, the other can say it is half full… neither of them are wrong — it’s just different perspectives.

[malcontent]

After looking up the dictionary definition of “bottom of the barrel” - I think I see why you thought my intention was to degrade or imply something objectionable or inferior.

This is where native speakers of English (who never learned the dictionary definition) can be misconstrued. My meaning was in the sense of “leftover or least desired items” after everyone has picked through the barrel and gotten what they deem to be the most attractive items — whatever is left over, if anything, is the bottom of the barrel.