Hi guys, particularly current J1s!!! The PW cycle has just started for you guys and I know that some of you guys must be frustrated over your PI being rejected of ideas. IF you have the following thoughts now:
"How to do PW PI?"
"PI rejected again!(sigh)"
"I want to give up on PI...",
then this blogpost is just for you!
For all of my GPF documents (PI, EOM and I&R), I had received great feedback from both my teachers last year. So I would like to share how to make sure that your PI submits innovative ideas in the next draft, and hopefully before the deadline!
Technically the PI is the easiest document that you will be submitting in PW, as there is no source of restriction whatsoever! You can write about any possible topics, education, human rights, health, transportation, any possible thing you can think of. This is unlike other things like Evaluation of Material (EoM) (your second piece of GPF) where you need to be restricted to the WR topic.
So, the main focus of PI is:
1. A good Case Study for inspiration
2. A good Idea to solve the problem
1.Case Study
The Case Study requires you to give a short outline of the event that gives your inspiration for the project. Due to the word limit, keep the Case Study to these pointers:
1. Background Information of Case Study
2. Impacts
3. 2-3 Key Features and Evaluation for Application into your GI
DO NOTE: Case Study need not be a success. You can use one that has a failure (and it is easier to find fault in a failed attempt) that you can mention that must be paid attention to when crafting your GI.
2. Application Area
With references to your Case Study, give an idea to resolve a particular problem in a particular society.
The idea must be INSIGHTFUL and/or INNOVATIVE. The definition of these two terms differs from teacher to teacher. Therefore, you must find out from your PW tutor of their stand of these two terms, as they WILL be the ones marking the GPF (PI, EoM, I&R).
Generally, the criterion is as follow:
INSIGHTFUL: An idea that shows an alternative perception towards the problem faced OR idea is specially catered to people of that particular society.
INNOVATIVE: An idea that has never been seen before OR implemented before.
To aid in the crafting of GI, check if your GI meets these criteria to be INSIGHTFUL AND INNOVATIVE:
1. Has your GI been implemented before in other societies?
2. Given the situation of society based on the problem, can your idea still be implemented? (Feasibility)
3. In the environment that the idea is been implemented in, are there enough equipment and personnel available to ensure that the events go smoothly? (Manageability)
4. Does the idea match the current trend (e.g. habits and living hood) of the society? (Insightful)
5. Does the idea show your knowledge of the society and information that is striking and commonly not emphasised in the society? (Insightful)
If your idea passes in all these questions, then you have an Exceeding Expectation (EE) GI!
NOTE: Do remember about the need to evaluate your idea at then end to show it effectiveness. Use factors such as feasibility and manageability to boost the A&E marks to EE!)
Extra Notes:
1.You can "work backwards". You can come out with a smashing GI first and then use the topic discussed in the Application Area to find a suitable Case Study.
2. If you need any more help regarding PI, or just need more information on how to score for PW, just contact me. I can also help to look through your PI to see where it stands (as I have done PW before). The conversations are private and none of your PW material will be leaked out to others, as asked by some people who contacted me!
All the best for PW and may the games begin!
Wednesday, 22 March 2017
Friday, 10 March 2017
SSEF 2017: Message to authorities
Hi, I participated in SSEF 2017 with my project. However, I would like to share some observations that I had made that could suggest that the competition may have an error in the results.
I have participated in several competitions with my project on Chemistry (Actual Code will not be revealed to maintain confidentiality. In all of these competitions, I have won the top awards. However, for SSEF, I had not even been awarded a single award.
Later on in the Final Judging Round of SSEF, I have been judged by five judges with most of them reverting positive responses to me, just like the previous competitions. When I asked if they could provide any room for improvement to my poster or project, they said that they all could not provide any room for improvement as the entire project and analysis was already very impressive and 'exceeded their expectation of the capability of a JC student'. When the Prize Ceremony came for SSEF 2017, this project that had performed extremely well for other big national competitions could not even place and win any awards in Singapore. This made me unable to qualify for A* Talent Search, which was my sole goal for SSEF since a person must win an award in SSEF before being eligible for A* Talent Search.
Also, judging from the results from the final judging round on the Science Centre Website, it suggested a great error in results. Chemistry, which previously was a category that many won Gold in, had only one Gold Awardee:
This is in great contrast from previous years, which had a majority of Chemistry entries out of all of the Gold Recipients, like in 2016 or 2015:
Why is there such a big contrast? I have recently called up relevant authorities regarding this issue and they basically told me that these results were based on the judges' comments and scores. But they do not equate to having such a big difference between 2016 results and 2017 results! I understand the huge competition in SSEF, but the big difference would not have happened in such a short period of time. For example, there were plenty of Chemistry project that was interesting and explained extremely well by the students, just as well or even better than those that were awarded Gold in other categories. Two examples that I could immediately think of was one on the usage of composite gels and one that uses fish gelatin to replace pork gelatin. Both are extremely significant and explained well with clear posters but yet both had failed to earn any awards. This just shows how confusing this year's results were for just the Chemistry category. The results are suggesting that this year's Chemistry students were worse off as compared to other categories, which is definitely not the case.
What's more, all of the Gold Recipients were all from the better JCs in Singapore. None were from the other JCs. In the past few years, there were still some from TJC, AJC, CJC, etc., but for this year, there was none. This may actually give people a perception of a fixed competition, though I am sure that the authorities would never allow this to happen.
I would strongly suggest the relevant authorities review this year's results and revert back to all participants of the large differences in this year's results because there is definitely an error in the results.
I have participated in several competitions with my project on Chemistry (Actual Code will not be revealed to maintain confidentiality. In all of these competitions, I have won the top awards. However, for SSEF, I had not even been awarded a single award.
Later on in the Final Judging Round of SSEF, I have been judged by five judges with most of them reverting positive responses to me, just like the previous competitions. When I asked if they could provide any room for improvement to my poster or project, they said that they all could not provide any room for improvement as the entire project and analysis was already very impressive and 'exceeded their expectation of the capability of a JC student'. When the Prize Ceremony came for SSEF 2017, this project that had performed extremely well for other big national competitions could not even place and win any awards in Singapore. This made me unable to qualify for A* Talent Search, which was my sole goal for SSEF since a person must win an award in SSEF before being eligible for A* Talent Search.
Also, judging from the results from the final judging round on the Science Centre Website, it suggested a great error in results. Chemistry, which previously was a category that many won Gold in, had only one Gold Awardee:
What's more, all of the Gold Recipients were all from the better JCs in Singapore. None were from the other JCs. In the past few years, there were still some from TJC, AJC, CJC, etc., but for this year, there was none. This may actually give people a perception of a fixed competition, though I am sure that the authorities would never allow this to happen.
I would strongly suggest the relevant authorities review this year's results and revert back to all participants of the large differences in this year's results because there is definitely an error in the results.
Tuesday, 17 January 2017
2017 Joint Admissions Exercise COP for JC
|
|
Arts |
Science/IB |
|
AJC |
11 |
9 |
|
ACJC |
8 |
7 |
|
ACS(I) |
5 |
|
|
CJC |
10 |
11 |
|
EJC |
9 |
9 |
|
HCI |
4 |
4 |
|
IJC |
19 |
20 |
|
MJC |
11 |
11 |
|
NYJC |
7 |
6 |
|
NJC |
7 |
6 |
|
RI |
4 |
4 |
|
SJI |
7 |
|
|
SAJC |
10 |
9 |
|
SRJC |
13 |
12 |
|
TJC |
9 |
9 |
|
TPJC |
13 |
14 |
|
PJC |
13 |
12 |
|
VJC |
7 |
5 |
|
YJC |
17 |
16 |
Joint Admissions Exercise (JAE) 2017 Reflections
The joint admissions exercise registration have just ended and will be released on 2nd February 2017. When the results are out, I WILL be posting the official CUT OFF POINTS FOR BOTH Science and Arts for ALL JCs in Singapore. I hope that with these points, you will be able to have a better idea of whether to appeal for admission into another JC if you are not satisfied with your posted JC.
Criterion for eligibility for appeal
1. Meet aggregate point for appealing course (from 2016 JAE onwards)
You MUST meet the aggregate point for the course for that year in order to be eligible for appeal. You will not be considered for appeal into the course, even if you apply at the JC. You could submit an appeal to a school, but they will just ignore your application. For example, I have appealed to 4 JCs for JAE but have not successfully appealed into any of the JCs due to my L1R5.
On the flip side, if you have an aggregate that meets or even is lower than the COP, you are 99% guaranteed a spot into the institution because there is not much competition.
2. You will be considered based on both your academic and non-academic achievements.
Remember the 99% probability of getting into the school if you meet the COP. The 1% come from the lack of outstanding academic achievements. For example, if an overwhelming amount of people appeal into the JC, the school will have no choice but to consider non-academic achievements, such as CCAs. You may even be forced to join a CCA if they were to accept your appeal based on your non-academic achievements, such as what NYJC did last year because they had too many people trying to appeal to the school.
3. Your time of appeal
So make sure that you prepare any appeal CV (resume) that you are going to copy and paste into the Appeal Forms if you intend to appeal. Though the schools say that it is not on the first-come-first-serve basis, the applications are considered from the earliest to the latest and those earlier with outstanding achievements are given a spot in the school.
My predictions:
I feel that all the COP of JC would increase by 1 point for every course. The 2016 O Level Examination was unexpecting as the results were heavily moderated to an extent that many scored B and C for many subjects, such as Humanities. I have received emails from your fellow JAE applicants losing faith over entering their desired course due to their results. But due to the heavy moderation, I feel that the COP would increase and you may be able to get into the course you desire.
If you have any ideas or queries to share or ask, please feel free to email me @ littlebunniehellokitty@gmail.com
Criterion for eligibility for appeal
1. Meet aggregate point for appealing course (from 2016 JAE onwards)
You MUST meet the aggregate point for the course for that year in order to be eligible for appeal. You will not be considered for appeal into the course, even if you apply at the JC. You could submit an appeal to a school, but they will just ignore your application. For example, I have appealed to 4 JCs for JAE but have not successfully appealed into any of the JCs due to my L1R5.
On the flip side, if you have an aggregate that meets or even is lower than the COP, you are 99% guaranteed a spot into the institution because there is not much competition.
2. You will be considered based on both your academic and non-academic achievements.
Remember the 99% probability of getting into the school if you meet the COP. The 1% come from the lack of outstanding academic achievements. For example, if an overwhelming amount of people appeal into the JC, the school will have no choice but to consider non-academic achievements, such as CCAs. You may even be forced to join a CCA if they were to accept your appeal based on your non-academic achievements, such as what NYJC did last year because they had too many people trying to appeal to the school.
3. Your time of appeal
So make sure that you prepare any appeal CV (resume) that you are going to copy and paste into the Appeal Forms if you intend to appeal. Though the schools say that it is not on the first-come-first-serve basis, the applications are considered from the earliest to the latest and those earlier with outstanding achievements are given a spot in the school.
My predictions:
I feel that all the COP of JC would increase by 1 point for every course. The 2016 O Level Examination was unexpecting as the results were heavily moderated to an extent that many scored B and C for many subjects, such as Humanities. I have received emails from your fellow JAE applicants losing faith over entering their desired course due to their results. But due to the heavy moderation, I feel that the COP would increase and you may be able to get into the course you desire.
If you have any ideas or queries to share or ask, please feel free to email me @ littlebunniehellokitty@gmail.com
Wednesday, 9 November 2016
Review on 2016 A Level Project Work
Well, just completed the entire PW cycle this Tuesday... The entire process was just one word: 'Boring'! I just would have wished that we would have more things to do for the PW cycle. Just by doing a Written Report, Oral Presentation and Group Project File, does not suffice as a meaningful PW cycle and hence made the entire process boring.
Well, looking back at the past 8 months of PW, this was unforgettable. I had learnt somethings about myself and even others in my group that I had never seen in 1 year in J1!
I chose Expansion for all project documents that I had submitted. It is more flexible and easier to manipulate than 'Achievement'. Expansion was easy and effective for the project.
Specific Components of PW
GPF
Preliminary Idea
This was the most easiest component of the entire PW cycle. The document could have been on anything under the sun. As long as the GI and A&E is logical, then it would be highly appropriate. I ended up having one of the exemplars in my class for PI! This was the most fun component of PW! I think I did well for this document
Evaluation of Material
The most tedious component of entire PW cycle. A&E had constantly been rejected due to the lack of effective Research Articles to complement GI. At the end, I had just managed to get a proper learning point from the Research Article and made just enough for the deadline and I submitted on time.
Insights and Reflections
Was okay with it. I thought that it was easy because I got to criticize other people's GI and proposed solutions to it that the Written Report cannot do. However, it turned out that I ended out to crticise my own strategy and propose it into the I&R. Was manageable, though I had to do it many times because of my English.
WR
This was actually sort of a rough ride for me. My idea got rejected twice for Strategy for our topic. The idea of it being rejected was just horrible! However, in the end, I replaced my rejected strategies with my EOM strategy and everything turned up well.
OP
During the actual examination, the first (above mentioned) and Case Study speaker both had problems with their presentation. First constantly paused and had no energy in presentation. The second skipped an entire paragraph and discoordinated the entire Slides sequence. Me, and the two next speakers all were not bad, but I thought I had not enough energy, so that affect my marks a bit...
My question during RTQ was one of the most hardest in my entire school. I got it unfortunately. However I answered two valid points with ample elaboration. However my third point was rush and unnecessary as I ran out of time to think of a point. Could someone enlighten how well I would fare in this manner. Would I score EE?
That you have it, I have completed my review on my cycle of PW? What was or will be yours? Share yours below!!!
Ordinary Student
Well, looking back at the past 8 months of PW, this was unforgettable. I had learnt somethings about myself and even others in my group that I had never seen in 1 year in J1!
I chose Expansion for all project documents that I had submitted. It is more flexible and easier to manipulate than 'Achievement'. Expansion was easy and effective for the project.
Specific Components of PW
GPF
Preliminary Idea
This was the most easiest component of the entire PW cycle. The document could have been on anything under the sun. As long as the GI and A&E is logical, then it would be highly appropriate. I ended up having one of the exemplars in my class for PI! This was the most fun component of PW! I think I did well for this document
Evaluation of Material
The most tedious component of entire PW cycle. A&E had constantly been rejected due to the lack of effective Research Articles to complement GI. At the end, I had just managed to get a proper learning point from the Research Article and made just enough for the deadline and I submitted on time.
Insights and Reflections
Was okay with it. I thought that it was easy because I got to criticize other people's GI and proposed solutions to it that the Written Report cannot do. However, it turned out that I ended out to crticise my own strategy and propose it into the I&R. Was manageable, though I had to do it many times because of my English.
WR
This was actually sort of a rough ride for me. My idea got rejected twice for Strategy for our topic. The idea of it being rejected was just horrible! However, in the end, I replaced my rejected strategies with my EOM strategy and everything turned up well.
OP
During the actual examination, the first (above mentioned) and Case Study speaker both had problems with their presentation. First constantly paused and had no energy in presentation. The second skipped an entire paragraph and discoordinated the entire Slides sequence. Me, and the two next speakers all were not bad, but I thought I had not enough energy, so that affect my marks a bit...
My question during RTQ was one of the most hardest in my entire school. I got it unfortunately. However I answered two valid points with ample elaboration. However my third point was rush and unnecessary as I ran out of time to think of a point. Could someone enlighten how well I would fare in this manner. Would I score EE?
That you have it, I have completed my review on my cycle of PW? What was or will be yours? Share yours below!!!
Ordinary Student
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)