HAIYA.. DONT SHOW A OR NOT A LA.. next time jus show the mark.. if u score 80 also A u score 100 also A.. so wat the diff. abolish this damn system.. nex time ask how many percent u got.. not how many A u got.. easy for JPA to charge who is better tat way.. anyway 10 subject is more than enough.. y take so many anyway.. then u go to stpm u take 4 or 5 subject again? spm is totally overrated. try asking those who score 15a to go take some A level course.. i wanna c how they score.. all spoon fed nowadays.. teacher spot the question, giv student tips to study.. student now study not for the knowledge but jus to get A.. even get A also dont understand as they jus hafal..sien..

the scholarship will all be pass to those who take stpm.. the rest ..earth is full go away..

as for me, it is not a good step for JPA/MARA/Petronas/<insert scholarship here>/UPU/Matriks to make a better judgement for those who are eligible for the scholarship and Universities.Since these recent years show that 10-12As is a normal achievement for excellent student, the applicants of scholarship will be flooded by those who get 10As.So, the only benchmark that sholars can use is co-curricular activities achievement which I doubt everyone take care about.To make things worst,you will get full marks for co-curricular activities by joining PLKN.Straight to the point,i really think that this is the way the gov want to urges students to go to PLKN.

so 10A1+PLKN = WINRAR

well,if only that they know our marks on the As you all got,it will also create little competition..

apsidewatch: In my year, the only girl that got into Harvard 'only managed' 8A1s (iirc), and this was relatively recent (after the 15/16A1 girl). I'm using the appeal to authority argument here, but yeah Harvard should know whether a particular student is brilliant or not shouldn't they? The number of A1s should not be a differentiating factor because it makes no sense to measure how good someone if the subjects he/she takes up is completely unrelated to the intended degree.

hanissyazwan: Siapakah orang Melayu? Adakah aku orang Melayu? Kad Pengenalan aku menyatakan aku orang Cina. Rupa saya juga macam orang Cina. Tetapi aku bukan seratus peratus orang Cina. Nenek moyangku orang Baba, dan aku pasti bahawa nenek moyangku pun ada orang Melayu. Sepupu aku orang Melayu kerana mak cik aku mengahwini orang Melayu. Aku tidak tahu bercakap dalam bahasa Mandarin. Masa aku kecil, aku selalu bermain dengan sepupu Melayu aku, dan aku tidak pernah memikir sepupu aku sebagai orang asing kerana kami telah diberi label bangsa yang berbeza. Inilah soalan aku: Adakah aku lebih Melayu atau lebih Cina, atau, adakah dia lebih Cina atau lebih Melayu?

[sorry for the lousy BM, I haven't used it in ages]

well of course the subject should be related to the courses that you applied...

Technically If you are truly excelled in SPM why bother with JPA, i think you can easily secure a private scholarship. I never applied for Govt linked scholarship since they are not majorly based on meritocracy but on quota of....... I got a private scholarship in oversea which is must easier than applying for matriks here.
To get scholarship the most important is the interview itself like when applying for job too. If your communication skill is not up to par then don't think of getting one no matter how well you performed in exam. Anyhow life itself is not fair, once you grasp the principle life should be easier to dealt with.

If everyone is limited to 10 subjects let say, there will be no those super excellent 16A1, 18A1 students. Then they can be rest assured that those kind of students cannot make noise even if they are of that materials. In the end, we might see that more Malays where they usually take less subjects get the scholarship, in a more nice manner, because the Chinese just got the same A1s with them.

I saw the news just now, and feel to seek opinions of fellow forumers here about the issue.

It's said to ensure a more uniform and fair distribution for JPA scholarship, number of subjects to be taken in SPM are to be limited.
Personally, I feel that this is not an effective measure to meet their goal, but instead, a measure to allow them avoid some problems that arise this year.

If everyone is limited to 10 subjects let say, there will be no those super excellent 16A1, 18A1 students. Then they can be rest assured that those kind of students cannot make noise even if they are of that materials. In the end, we might see that more Malays where they usually take less subjects get the scholarship, in a more nice manner, because the Chinese just got the same A1s with them.

And I feel that there is no way that students should get limited in pursuing knowledge. Okay, you may argue that no exam also can self study what. But just self study can't tell you how good are you in that specific knowledge. If you are interested in Accounts, surely you wish to get judged externally about your skill in the knowledge you are interested in. Furthermore, with an exam ahead, it ensures that candidates will determinedly study well for it. If now we all are limited in taking the subjects, then we can't explore more knowledge. Is that what we should be doing as a student?
NO!

I really that this is a way that the government wants to do to make non-Bumi to get scholarships as they would slice off the advantages of Chinese who usually take more subjects, and hence a more beautiful result.

This way won't work. It's even better that you have a stricter marking system, or perhaps introducing the tedious Ranking system like what done for the Year 12 in Australia. That would ensure who is better, who is not, who is more fit to get the scholarship and who is unfit, as long as the really excellent students can stand out.

LOL, ya lo.
That's why.
The system needs a change, and the change is not just introducing 1 extra grading for A (ie, from A1 A2 to A+ A A-) and limiting the subjects to be taken.
More steps are to be taken, including what talked about several times here, push up the graph, higher up the standard, or even fix the marks for getting an A.

Yes, our syllabus is quite shit because we are not introduced thoroughly for a lot of fundamental knowledge. Plus, the way they write the textbook and reference book do not grant full understanding without further study, which is quite hard for secondary school students due to lack of resources.

Well, I do benefit from the Malay to English change and I support this move. But it's me, and probably my school, because we had teachers who first learned the subjects in English (the old old teachers) and are more than happy to actually teach in English. If it wasn't the change, my English wouldn't be so good now (although it's still bad.).

Moral Studies need a change in syllabus, entirely. More philosophical thingy should be introduced, making students to think critically. This way, we produce students with moral thoughts. If remained, the subject name can be changed to 'Memorising Practice' which fit in more appropriate.
I see the change of emphasis of reasonings and results for History in syllabus but I do not see the teachers (at least in my school) are radical enough to introduce us critical thinking as well for History. Sarcastically, there's a quote something like 'History is taught not to be repeated' appearing very often in the textbook.

Stupid move by the government, where they usually pick the easiest instead of the most effective one.
Singaporeans perhaps are laughing that they actually abandon Malaya.