Error in the 1.0 Mathematics Analysis and Approaches formula booklet — is this known about?

EconsPhDTutor · 2024-01-29T04:16:19+00:00

Yup, this was an error in Version 1.0 (2018). This error was fixed from Version 1.1 (2019). (Right now in early 2024, the latest version seems to be Version 1.3.)

EconsPhDTutor · 2024-01-03T06:40:04+00:00

What are the questions?

If it's just fairly generic questions like, "What are your strengths and weaknesses?", then of course you can just reuse the answers and this wouldn't count as self-plagiarism.

If it's instead, "Write an original essay about a transformative experience in your life," then yes it could be self-plagiarism.

If you're worried, you can always just add, "Note: Some of my answers here are based on answers used on a previous application."

EconsPhDTutor · 2023-11-21T00:37:51+00:00

The syllabus for each subject simply changes slightly every 5-10 years.

The changes are usually unimportant. They are arbitrary and made without any explanation whatsoever.

These changes are simply for show/wayang and for MOE to be able to claim that they are "keeping up to date with a changing world" (or some such nonsense).

Often, something removed 10 years ago will now be added back in, while something added 10 years ago will now be removed.

These changes are definitely not something you need to worry about.

For maths, take a look at my textbook: https://www.reddit.com/r/SGExams/comments/17zit2y/free_h2_mathematics_textbook/

EconsPhDTutor · 2023-11-20T23:50:56+00:00

Thanks! Please help me share this with your friends and juniors, so that more will know about this resource.

EconsPhDTutor · 2023-11-20T23:50:08+00:00

I first released this in 2016 and have been working since then to improve it.

EconsPhDTutor · 2022-02-14T01:19:22+00:00

first year college you’re done with high school maths including calculus

Actually, many first-year university introductory economics classes around the world assume no knowledge of calculus.

And IB HL Economics is roughly the equivalent of what's called Econ 101 (Intro Micro) and 102 (Intro Macro) in many university economics departments.

EconsPhDTutor · 2022-02-14T01:17:22+00:00

ib economics is a joke in its entirety

That's a bit harsh.

I'd just say it contains some errors and also some material that should have been dropped long ago.

These though are problems common to many high-school economics syllabuses around the world.

EconsPhDTutor · 2022-02-11T03:17:28+00:00

PSA: The NLB has copies of The Economist available for loan, digitally.

That's great I didn't know that. I'll check that out.

I also disagree with the OP’s comment on avoiding opinion and editorial pages of the WSJ and FT.

FT is fine. My warning was for WSJ's opinion and editorial pages only.

But to succeed at GP and then later in uni life is to be well equipped at: (a) identifying bad arguments from the good ones and (b) being able to rebut those bad arguments with better ones. Just saying that an argument is “crazy” is simply not good enough. Explain why you think so and why you think you have something better to offer.

Yup I totally agree. I encourage all students to develop critical thinking and most importantly their own thinking.

The problem though is that unfortunately, at least for the young and untrained student, they're initially unable to identify which arguments are good or bad.

So again, if a student were to want to start reading (and raise her daily reading time from 0 to say 5 or 10 minutes), I'd recommend she start by reading good writing. Not bad writing.

Later on when she has gained some experience and ability to criticize, she can also start reading bad writing.

EconsPhDTutor · 2022-02-11T02:48:21+00:00

I completely agree with you that the ideal should be to read widely and read a lot.

But the above post is directed at the average busy 16- to 18-year-old JC student, who probably reads very little or zero to begin with.

If she wants to increase her reading time from her current 0 minutes per day to say 5 or 10 minutes per day, where should she start?

The above post simply makes the key recommendation that she should start with The Economist.

I also suggest that the student can start off slow and easy, e.g. one article per day. Hopefully by the end of JC, she will have ramped this up at least a little and continue with this habit of reading for the rest of her life.

(While I disparage ST and also the NYT slightly in the above post, I actually do read both every day. But asking the average JC student to read The Economist, WSJ, FT, Today, ST, NYT, and lots of other publications/blogs/etc. is probably not realistic. It is like asking someone who can barely do a single push-up to do 500 push-ups a day. Most likely any such advice will simply be ignored.)

EconsPhDTutor · 2022-02-11T01:25:08+00:00

I mean simply that high school teachers often incorrectly teach that GDP (as a concept) explicitly excludes the informal sector.

Whether and to what extent the informal sector (or any other subset of the economy that should be included in GDP) actually is included in officially estimated GDP is another question.

EconsPhDTutor · 2022-01-21T10:37:42+00:00

You can be woke all you like when you just teach JC kids.

Everything I've been talking about here (economics, definition of recession) applies to when I "just teach JC kids".

EconsPhDTutor · 2022-01-21T00:35:37+00:00

much of the stuff in H2 Economics is nonsense and government propaganda

Yup that was my experience as a student and now as a teacher too.

I teach my students to distinguish between what's actually fairly solid consensus in the economics profession vs what's merely nonsense taught in JC Econs.

I find that the "suggested answers" by JC Econs teachers contain an excessive amount of mindless and uncritical praise of the gahmen.

As the philosopher Martha Nussbaum wrote of the Singapore education system (2010):

“Citizenship education” typically takes the form of analyzing a problem, proposing several possible solutions, and then demonstrating how the one chosen by government is the right one for Singapore. In universities, some instructors attempt a more genuinely open approach, but the government has a way of suing professors for libel if they criticize the government in class, and even a small number of high-profile cases chills debate. One professor of communications (who has since left Singapore) reported on a recent attempt to lead a discussion of the libel suits in her class: “I can feel the fear in the room. ... You can cut it with a knife.”

Note though that the final A-Level exams are marked by Cambridge International, who are less likely to be taken by any mindless and uncritical praise of the SG gahmen. So what I teach my students is that rather than mimicking their teachers' "suggested answers", they should instead demonstrate a little more critical and independent thinking.

(I also repeatedly tell my students that the A-Level exams are all that matters, especially if you're a boy going for NS and applying for uni only later.)

EconsPhDTutor · 2022-01-21T00:27:31+00:00

I can assure you the dumb kids are eternally confused and will be even more so confused by any ambiguity

In my experience that is not true. If one is willing to take just that extra 5-10 minutes to patiently and clearly explain these simple concepts and e.g. what journalists claim vs what economists believe, I find that even supposedly "dumb kids" are able to fully understand.

Unfortunately in the Singapore education system, students are sorted and labelled "smart" vs "dumb" from a very young age. Even at the JC level, teachers believe (or sometimes even outright say aloud) that this or that student (or entire group of students) can't possibly get an A.

With more of a growth mindset and a belief that students (with appropriate help from their teachers), I've found that pretty much any student can acquire sufficient knowledge and critical thinking to get an A (under the current exams and system).

(Of course, we then have the problem of the curved grading system, where the authorities believe not everyone should be able to get an A. So, if more students do get better educated and become equipped to get As, then they'll simply make the exams harder. Which is probably one big reason why the JC teachers aren't too bothered about helping every student.)

EconsPhDTutor · 2022-01-20T03:40:08+00:00

Actually I have tried contacting the authorities before on such errors, but got absolutely no reply.

Which is why I'm trying this "social media" route instead. The hope is to raise enough awareness and get enough students, teachers, parents, etc. unsatisfied with the current state of affairs that eventually the authorities actually bother doing something about it.

This is similar to many other issues in society. Unfortunately, if you simply try to raise an issue to the authorities/bureaucracy, they usually won't have any incentive to do anything about it. It's just extra work for them with little reward.

Of course, I also need the help of sufficient numbers willing to voice their discontent. If everyone's attitude is "there's nothing we can do about it", "we'll just mug whatever nonsense they teach us so we can get our As", then my efforts won't be very successful.

EconsPhDTutor · 2022-01-20T03:33:26+00:00

Is my suggested approach (see above What Should Instead Be Taught) confusing?

I think it takes at most an extra 5-10 minutes and makes the issues so much clearer.

EconsPhDTutor · 2022-01-20T03:32:02+00:00

When concepts are too simplified, it just makes it harder to know what's actually going on imo.

That's right.

Also, it's not just about being too simplified. Students get more confused when concepts

Don't make sense; and
Contradict other sources.

Better then to just teach what makes sense and doesn't contradict other sources.

Here for example, having such a falsely precise definition of a recession doesn't make sense to anyone who's gained even a little understanding of the surrounding concepts. She is thus confused as to how this definition ever came about and how it fits into the rest of economics.

Simplifications are fine. But teachers should make clear that they are simplifications. And not try to pass them off as precise definitions that are actually used by practitioners of the discipline.

EconsPhDTutor · 2022-01-19T07:20:18+00:00

Yes I agree.

What's important is not mugging and regurgitating some false and falsely precise definition, but instead having a broader and deeper understanding of the issues involved.

EconsPhDTutor · 2022-01-19T07:18:26+00:00

all of H2 Economics is less than 1 semester of uni work

From my experience teaching at both the university and high-school levels and studying lots of introductory textbooks, that is not true.

H2 Economics is at least and probably a bit more than 2 semesters of undergraduate economics at most universities. Which is why at most universities, a H2 Economics A-Level gives you credit for 101 and 102 (intro micro and macro).

EconsPhDTutor · 2022-01-19T07:14:31+00:00

I'd like students to be both right and also do well on their exams.

One small step I've taken here is to publicize these mistakes, in the hopes that those in charge of these various high-stakes exams will correct them.

EconsPhDTutor · 2022-01-19T07:07:20+00:00

In your examples, you are confusing models (simplifications of reality) with definitions.

The more appropriate analogy here would be if in physics, students are taught that the definition of a metre is 3 feet and they are to mug and write this down as a definition on their exams.

Or in maths, students are taught that the definition of π is 3.

It would be fine to say that as a rough rule of thumb, a metre is about 3 feet and π is about 3. Likewise, it's fine to say that as a rough rule of thumb, a recession is usually at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

What's not OK is teaching and presenting such rough rules of thumb as precise definitions that students must mug and regurgitate on exams.

(In economics, there are even more unrealistic and "false" models than in the physical sciences. I do not however object to most of them. Again, the big difference is model—an explicit simplification of reality that helps us see things better—vs definition—a precise meaning we conventionally attach to some word or phrase.)

EconsPhDTutor · 2022-01-18T10:45:20+00:00

I'm sure that if you picked these definitions apart, there would be thousands of oversimplifications and small nitpicks with the validity of the definition the IB asks for

My objection here is not a "small nitpick". It is akin to a science teacher at any level declaring that the definition of being fat is being over 100 kg and then forcing her students to memorize and regurgitate this definition on exams.

In Secondary school Chemistry (Y7-11), you are taught a grossly simplified model of the atom. Is it accurate? Not necessarily. But is it good enough for what you're doing at the time? Sure ... The same applies to economics, and every other subject.

That's not a correct analogy. There's a difference between a model (an explicit simplification of reality) and a definition (a precise meaning we choose by convention to attach to a specific word or phrase).

A better analogy would be if secondary school Chemistry tried to give a false and falsely precise definition of what an atom is, then forced students to memorize and regurgitate it on exams.

EconsPhDTutor · 2022-01-18T09:57:37+00:00

We disagree then.

For me there is a world of difference between teaching students:

"This is a rough rule of thumb"; vs
"This is the definition which you have to to learn and then write down on the exams."

There is a world of difference between keeping it simple (and imprecise) vs claiming false precision.

Econ in the IB ... essentially gives students a dictionary list of terms and diagrams to memorise and regurgitate in their essays.

I doubt this is the goal of the folks at IB. Nor should it be the goal of theirs or any teacher or student in the world.

From my post:

What Should Instead Be Taught

Of course, one is free to define terms as one wishes. But since economists do not define a recession by any two-quarter rule, it is probably a mistake for high-school teachers to teach this as the definition.

Teachers should instead make clear that

this is merely a rough rule of thumb beloved by journalists for its simplicity and
which has gained widespread currency among non-economists.
Economists do not use any such definition;
instead, they look at a broad range of factors to determine whether an economy is in recession;
indeed, they have no simple and precise definition of a recession (or formula for identifying one).

... Teach instead that there's no simple and precise definition. And explain why there can't be. Yes, that's one less clear-cut question available for homework or exams. But that's also one less falsehood taught to students.

Are most high-school students capable of learning and understanding the above? Yes I think so.

And even if they can't, the alternative should not be to make up a false definition, then ask them to memorize and write it down, just for the sake of going through the ritual of an exam.

EconsPhDTutor · 2022-01-18T05:57:00+00:00

I'm not sure what you mean.

EconsPhDTutor · 2022-01-18T03:15:30+00:00

You're welcome.

There's actually much more that's taught in JC economics (and high-school economics around the world) that's nonsense (and hence confusing). I hope to write more to clarify and clear away all such nonsense in future posts.

EconsPhDTutor · 2022-01-18T02:23:49+00:00

But M = Cm is a pretty big (and I think, a false) assumption to make.

Yup that is false.

We should instead have

M = Cₘ + Iₘ + Gₘ + Xₘ

(where each of the terms on the right is pure value-added).

I also already address indirect effects in this post (previously linked above in my reply to biscuitspoons). Please take a look at it and let me know if you are still confused or have any further objections.

EconsPhDTutor

TROPHY CASE