The controversy

Since it was announced that the grading system is slightly changed to introduce a higher distinction namely "super distinction" for SPM, I had been wondering how it would result in a different outcome regarding the proportion of candidates scoring the so called perfect result in a particular subject or all of the subjects taken, which have been limited to 10+2.

A grading system is like a measuring tool. It is designed to measure something. It should be moulded and calibrated considering the main aspects - is it too long or too short to measure the full size of the object? Is it sensitive enough such that smallest division used is helpful to give a reading including the significant figures needed? Can it be used to measure different objects, and give a comparison of them? A bad tool is not meant to be a bad tool as it might still be useful to measure other objects of different requirements. Applying the same analogy, I soon realised the new grading system is not competent enough to calibrate the candidates nationwide from the same batch in a credible and sensible method.

The SPM wouldn't be so important if it hasn't been included in the main consideration taken into account while the government department such as Public Service Department or other party such as National Bank is going to determine scholarship winners. Therefore SPM result is often related to these scholarships because they are closely linked. To maximise the chance to qualify oneself as the applicant and at the same time secure such scholarships, scoring a perfect result is necessary. It could be scoring all A1 based on the previous grading system or all A+ based on the current grading system. These are so called "perfect result" which would guarantee you, or at least it is very hard to deprive your chance to secure the scholarship provided by government. This is why candidates used to take more insignificant subjects, leading to improvement made to the examination system whereby maximum number of subjects taken has been limited. However, the flawed remains flawed until today due to the lack of transparency as some parties are still seeking for explanation for the unsolved yet prolonged problems, or even some conspiracy as mentioned by others.

How if there are too many perfect scorers? I didn't expect to know there is a large number of "perfect" scorers nor did I believe it if approximately 90% is the official threshold as reported. I'm not certain whether the number of candidates who managed to score A+ for any subjects is almost equal to the figure of the previous batch of candidates, however and still, there is something very obvious and provoking - the steep gradient between Chinese subject and any other subject. All of that is just playing with the normal distribution. Apparently it is not hard to set a threshold with the marks needed as the responding variable based on the proportion of the distribution required artificially. For example, if we want only 8% of those, let say 10000 of them who take a particular subject to get an A+, we can easily determine the threshold of the marks needed for the A+ by considering the lowest marks obtained by the candidates in the 8% of distribution. We might question how if the overall performance has greatly declined and what other changes should be made. In this case, a smaller proportion can be selected, for example, 5% or lower. Therefore, this flexible method is not applied blindly, but considering all the possible situations with a fair solution.

It has been a known fact that the "hardest" subject appears to be Chinese subject. In case you don't know how "hard" it is, you can ask any of your friends who were sitting for SPM in 2009 and could proudly tell you he or she had gotten an A+ in that subject. I don't have an official figure nor statistic for this, but it is fairly easy to spot the flaw when you heard there is only one hundred and more candidates scoring A+ nationwide, while a school could have equal number of candidates achieving the same result for any other subject. Why is the percentage of proportion scoring A+ for Chinese is less than 1% while other subjects can have relatively high percentage such as 8% or even more than 10%? All we need is an explanation.

Put the grading system of SPM aside, I would like to share some of my views towards the distribution of PSD scholarship. I used to think it is the best to give away the scholarship to the best brains. However when I further reflect on this issue, I think of wealth gradient among the people in our country and the way our government is trying to minimise gradient. We can't let the people in poverty to stand in the tight competition alone, that's why some policies such as free tax or extra subsidy are introduced so that they can have a better living condition, although it is still considerably terrible. This issue would be less controversial if everyone understands that. However it is not easy to protect everyone...

[To be continued...]