I'll ask the following question: What degree would actually use the 16 subjects or whatever number of subjects in the SPM examination?

[in the context that you used, that more As somehow imply that a student is a better choice for some degree when it comes to JPA selection]

This post has been edited by bgeh: May 21 2009, 11:36 PM

Then you have the same issue, that if 2 candidates get A1s for your subjects listed there, but then one gets 16A1 and the other 'just' 7A1, you still get the same outcry. Doesn't solve the problem.

[Note: I'd be much happier if they actually decided to publish the selection criteria beforehand when applications are opened. The opaqueness is pissing plenty of people off]

Would you be happier then if they let you take more than the limit, and tell you the results, but it won't appear in the certificate, and that bodies are expressly told that they cannot consider subjects which are not on the cert? That'll fix the problem

Because frankly I took extra subjects which I never enjoyed in SPM and I still wonder why I took them other than my parents pushing me to do it.

*I also must note that I disapprove strongly of your Malay/Chinese prescription again

This post has been edited by bgeh: May 22 2009, 12:27 AM

Perhaps, but don't you think examinations are an extremely hit or miss approach to measure results? Making them harder might just mean one careless mistake might just screw things up further when it comes to a scholarship no matter how bright you are.

Okay, look, this 'discussion' and all is basically going nowhere because we haven't defined what exactly the JPA is for. I seem to sense that for many of you, the JPA is a way to study overseas cheaply. But let's look at it from the perspective of the government, what exactly is their goal in mind when they look at the JPA?

*and angel01, I'd probably fall into your category of a 'poor' student too

We're all going to have to define our metrics, and what exactly constitutes deserving, and no affirmative action can also be part of the metric.

The main problem really is that the government doesn't define it beforehand. Also, perhaps this should be spun off into a JPA discussion instead?

This post has been edited by bgeh: May 22 2009, 07:18 PM

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]

This post has been edited by bgeh: May 29 2009, 07:47 AM

Then does it invalidate the 11A-12A argument then? Because that would mean that (assuming that only at most a few subjects are related at all to the intended degree - probably true for many cases) the number of As mean nothing unless it was done in the context of the relevant subjects alone.

Heck I find it even troubling that SPM's used as a benchmark for JPA allocation of scholarships. It should be the pre-u ones, because that'll force the student to specialise, and that'll make it so much easier for the JPA to discriminate truly excellent students in that field (assumptions: same entrance exam or of similar difficulty, which we lack right now) and we won't have this rush for bloody As in SPM which won't lead to this SPM 'A' inflation.

But here's the followup question: Even if it's made to get those who scored the best, is there still room for affirmative action to take place? I'd say yes, and I'd infer that many of you want a tougher set of exams so that you can then use the meritocracy argument to say they're biased towards some race. But then again affirmative action is always biased

I have to disagree to be honest. I didn't do well for my SPM, or the mock SPM tests , but I did much better in my pre-u and my marks right now tend to be better than the marks I got when I was in secondary school doing add maths (and I'm studying maths/physics)

edit: bolded to show the part I'm referring to

This post has been edited by bgeh: May 29 2009, 11:35 PM