1)The examples quoted were of course from my personal example. I cant speak for the general public, and neither can you. Which way will benefit the school the most? There is no valid comparison for now, as NYPS has not enrolled the students based on proximity or other merits yet.
Currently half of NYPS pupils score more than 240 in PSLE, will this get even better if the enrolment criteria are based on something else? Will the school become a more diversified and competitive elite school if they forgo the legality system?
2) Whether a better resourced kid has more chance of success or not has never be my point of contention in this thread. Don’t get too carried away.
3) I am for the proximity over legacy system, cause it is more rational.


---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 niumum 的帖子 “im not a "firm believer"”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12359146

from a personal pespective.

i was talking about probability. enter 100 kids of 100 NYPS alumni vs another 100 kids from the 1km neighbourhood. the likelihood is that a higher percentage of the alumni kids will score better in PSLE than the neighbourhood kids, though these kids come from an affluent neighbourhood and may have a higher chance of success than the national average. the difference will be more pronounced for schools in HDB estates.

there was a "valid comparison" that you are referring to: in early years of singapore's independence, schools were more homogenous and NYPS have admitted based on proximity like your lawyer friend did. back then these top schools did not stand out. however over the years with a strong alumni network these schools have became cream of the crop.

FYI, alumni identity i was talking about in my earlier posts was not referring to just primary schools. in singapore the top schools arr clusters of affiliated schools from primary to juniot college. eg the nanyang-hwachong sch cluster, raffles, anglo-chinese, st andrews, to name a few. nothing to boast about if you come from NYPS, but it is certainly comething if your entire clan are alumni of the nanyang group of schools.


---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 爱游泳的鼠 的帖子 “replies”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12359175

the current enrollment criteria of primary schools in China and US are for proximity and/or other merits, correct me if I m wrong. We have not heard debating in those countries suggesting the primary schools give absolute priority enrollment to alumni kids, in the name of school benefit.
But this issue in Singapore has always been a topic of contention. Is not this says a lot?


---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 爱游泳的鼠 的帖子 “replies”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12359175

has 3 universities. it is impossible to form the ivy league or 985-211 kind of elite universities alumni group in US or China's context

so the only way is to for the primary amd secondary schools to form their elite enclave. besides, China and US may have other social barriers that we are not aware of, like hukou. in singapore anyone is free to move to anywhere on the island as long as they have the money.


---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 爱游泳的鼠 的帖子 “and”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12359238

1. Probabilty of alumni kids doing better than kids living within 1km? Do you have statistics to support this argument? Or is it just a conjecture??

2. Half of NYPS kids scoring 240 or above in PSLE - do you know how much percentage of each cohort in NYPS belongs to the gifted program? More than 10%. Do you know how much percentage get to share GE resources? Almost 30%. And do you know how much more resources were provided to the GE program?

3. The argument about the affiliation from from primary school to junior college is totally not valid. I work in the education system; in fact, a lot of NYPS kids move on to the Raffles family, and a lot of ACS kids move on to the other schools too. Alumni bonding only started from secondary school onwards.

4. The entire argument about so called "elite enclave" just makes all the talks about "every school is a good school" a big joke. So can I say that the MOE is rather self-contradictory? Not willing to make a slightest change to the absolute priority given to alumni, and yet claiming all the school are equally good? If all schools are good, shouldn't young kids to allocated to the nearest school, for greatest convenience?

I actually agree that there is a need for schools associate with their alumni and give them certain privilege. But giving absolute priority to alumni is just totally irrational.

---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 爱游泳的鼠 的帖子 “replies”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12359175

其实我自己也是教育工作者，觉得有些现象实在很不公平，尤其是给校友绝对优先权的政策。如果给两公里内的校友优先权，我完全没有意见。

反正我等平民，什么也做不了。我自己的孩子，如果进不了家里附近的热门小学，只好让他去两公里外的普通小学。其实也没什么，就是又要辛苦老人帮我天天接孩子了，或者让小朋友从小一就开始坐校车。

---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 snowflamingo 的帖子 “I'm sorry I have to reply again”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12359330

so isnt it more likely that students graduate from top schools will go on to do well in life? (precisely why you want to send your own kids there) compared to the random probability of kids within 1km, would it be wrong to "conject" that alumni of top schools are more likely to have kids who will become good students than national average?

about the second point, i agree that these schools enjoys a lot of exclusive resources through GEP, but lookinh at the current social dynamics (lots of vested interest by alumni etc) would you deny that the schools owe these priviledges to their alumni?

my point about affiliation is this: an RJC alumni has lower place in the rafflesian family than a "pure-bred" rafflesian eg RGPS-RGS-RJC, so yes alumni "branding" starts in primary school.

about the last point, it is human nature and inevitable in all societies for elite enclaves to be formed. the all school equally good is just propaganda. government dont want to encourage that, and they tried ways and means to counter eliticism, but there is no way they can overhaul it.


---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 snowflamingo 的帖子 “I'm sorry I have to reply again”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12359330

bowling team. primary 3.
他的家长，用尽心思要把他送进去ACSP.
这样，我们学校BOWLING TEAM的就去了人家学校，哈哈，因为每次他们学校第一，俺们学校第二：（。。。
我们副校长说，人家有钱，VERY TRUE.好像要捐挺多才能进去。
那是个很好的孩子，也许家长的决定是对的。肯定ACSP比我们学校好。哈哈。起码纪律好象好一点。
资源也不一般。各个方面。

---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 niumum 的帖子 “you dont deny that top schools produce better students right”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12359360

1)If that is what you believe, which is that the success story of NYPS is largely due to its enrollment priority. NYPS has to be the world number 1 primary school, as its enrollment method is so” superior” than the rest of the world.
I m sure there are other good primary schools in the world, amber of them, that do not enroll and given absolute priority to alumni kids, and equally successful.
Mind you, a school with an open mind will continue to flourish, that is why NYPS is taking in gifted students and also Soros(new money?)’s kid. Given proximity priority, they may take in our” King”’s kids in years to come. We welcome this change and it definitely adds culture diversity to the school.
2)Enough of NYPS discussion, as if I am a stakeholder. There are over 100 primary schools goes by legacy system. Talk about them too.
3)Lastly an inappropriate example-
A girl got a bank job because her father worked in the bank 30 years ago, for 6 years. She is perceived to be more qualified than the others, because, hey her father is a banker for 6 years, she must good at this job. Statistically proven. – legacy system
And
Another girl got a bank job because she has a pretty face and big boobs, born with it or after a successful plastic surgery. – Favor over proximity. Not entirely fair but I see this recruitment more rational. At least this girl has something to offer. Customers are happier. Fewer kids have to travel across the island at 6am every weekday.


---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 niumum 的帖子 “you dont deny that top schools produce better students right”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12359360

because of their P1 intake.

I have always stressed that PRIMARY schools are not the same as secondary schools or universities. Yes, because of PSLE results or secondary qualifications, top secondary school and universities produce better students. But I don't see how giving ABSOLUTE priority to alumni ensures a primary school's quality.

As I said, in my opinion, most of the so called elite primary schools get their status today not because of the P1 registration policy, which started about 15 years ago; but because of the resources they enjoyed from being a GEP centre - the GE program started about 30 years ago.

I'm actually offended that you said "precisely why you want to send you own kids there". I mentioned many times in my previous posts that my greatest concern is kid's convenience and how much sleep he enjoys. I don't care if he goes to a neighbourhood school if it is located downstairs. I was from a neighbourhood school myself and I think it's perfectly fine. But is it fair that he should go to some school further away, just because we have been staying near some popular school (which is also near his parent's work place) since he was born? Or shall I actually buy a new house to move away from the crowd??

I already said that alumni bonding started from secondary school, so your comparison of an RJC alumni with an RGPS-RGS-RJC alumni is shortchanging my idea. In fact, as I mentioned previously, a lot of RGS students are NOT from RGPS. My opinion is that an RGS-RJC alumni is definitely as good as someone who started from RGPS. If you have had an alumni network, you'll know that most people associate more with alumni from the same secondary school, not primary school.

---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 niumum 的帖子 “you dont deny that top schools produce better students right”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12359360

the impact students' family background have on their eventual academic achievements, but personally i do not think that the extra resources top schools enjoy is the sole determining factor that leads to better results. giving alumni priority does not ensure but give a better chance of maintaining the school's quality.

i apologize if you took the sentence personally, as i was actually having the general herd instinct in mind when i said that, and well aware that you value convenience and time efficiency the most.

the whole argument about alumni identity stem from the post which said that no one cares if you are ex-NYPS, if you did not go on to the affiliated secondary schools. so i was trying to say being a top pri sch alumni does play a part, albeit a small one, in your personal status especially if you really did end up being an elite pure bred (rafflesian, for example). i have a pure bred rafflesian colleague in my dept, and she is viewed (subtlely) as more high class than other rjc alumni in the dept coz she has well to do and well educated parents who managed to start her off in RGPS. the whole point was about the VALUE of having a top primary school as alma mater.


---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 snowflamingo 的帖子 “No, I don't agree that top PRIMARY schools produce better students”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12359448

而是政府。政策的目的是如何让所有的学生进入适合的小学，而不是保证名校的生源质量。

觉得校友那个phase的名额可以适当缩小，让住3km或5km之外的ballot。这样就避免了某些kiasu parents住淡滨尼送小孩去南华，或住榜鹅送小孩去南洋。

让大部分小学生就近上学，如果能每天省去1小时接送的时间，有更多休息，亲子的时间多好呢

关于房价的问题，实际上所谓的学区房会变多，因为phaseB/C有了更多名额，这样学区房的supply增加，最后价格也说不定。

不过我看校友其实也没占太多名额嘛

Alumni (2A1) + Studied (2A2)
一般都没超过 Studying (1A)

而如果取消校友，改成就近入学。估计Phase 2C的结果会更惨
因为：精英家庭的孩子数目应该少过一般家庭的（没有数据支持，猜的），所以1A会占掉更多的位置，最后2C还是没好处。。。。。

不是RI RULES THE COUNTRY, ACS OWNS THE COUNTRY吗？
政府的人就不是校友啊？跟政府联系紧密的就不是校友啊？
不过，我觉得很多家长，都会因为自己的母校而搬家。搬到母校附近，然后孩子可以进母校并且早上并不用太多时间的大有人在。另外，如果他们以前是校友的话，他们的父母一般住在母校附近，所以，他们会选择送以前自己的母校，下午可以让祖父母照顾孩子。

感觉现在坡人各个都有抱怨政府的理由 而且社会阶层越低的人越喜欢投反对党

凭什么要考虑校友的孩子优先？这不就是成了世代相传了么？别的孩子怎么办? 一出生就被不公平对待了。一公里以内还是合理的，就近上学，免去劳顿。


---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 snowflamingo 的帖子 “没说要给住得近的absolute priority”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12358667

因为部长没有讲评判标准。

其实小学不是问题,问题是中学,现在越来越多好中学直通车,意味着留给普通中学的好的高中的名哦越来越少。所以从小学进入初中就非常关键了。

隔壁说本地医学院基本上都是Ri出来的,而且还要父母有背景,听了很震撼!

目前的情况下,ZF还是很强势的,小老百姓只能顺势而为,能通过校友或者义工进好学校的,都抓住机会,不要去批判这个制度。剩下的差中选好的,私下抱怨几声而已。

历史上曾经有一个学校到2A阶段就没有名额了,ZF的办法就是此后不断给这个牛校增加学额。这个办法会一直用下去,反正要保证2A的学生100%进。

给没有关系的孩子。

否掉了absolute priority to proximity as one of the extreme solutions.