The discussion about whether Singapore should forgo A-level exams and choose the International Baccalaureate (IB) system instead is an interesting one.

But instead of asking if the IB is a better fit for Singapore students, it would be better to ask if it is suited to each individual student (Is IB a better fit for S'pore students?, by Mr Ivan Goh; Jan 31).

The IB adopts a more holistic and broad-based approach, where students are required to study three higher-level and three standard-level subjects, including two languages, mathematics, a science subject, a humanities subject and an arts subject.

Students are graded on continuous assessments, in the form of presentations and written assignments, which account for 20 per cent to 50 per cent of a subject's final grade.

Students are also required to write an individual research essay and engage in philosophical and critical thinking through the Theory of Knowledge subject.

The creativity, action and service requirements of IB also ensure that students engage in community service and provide opportunities for personal growth.

The A-level route, on the other hand, requires most students to take three H2 subjects and one H1 subject, or four H2 subjects, coupled with General Paper and Project Work.

The system is also based on the traditional final examinations accounting for the whole grade of each subject.

In terms of academic systems, the IB requires greater rigour than the A levels over a longer period of time. It is a myth that the IB is easier than the A levels.

With two different systems provided, students who prefer the model that requires and rewards continuous effort, and which provides more exposure, can choose the IB, while those who prefer the traditional "one-exam-decides-all" model, where continuous effort may not necessarily be required, can choose the A levels.

Ultimately, it is not about which system fits a group of people but, rather, which system tailors to the specific needs of individuals.

Mr Goh's letter also referred to a larger percentage of Anglo-Chinese School (Independent) students scoring distinctions compared with Raffles Institution students.

Perhaps, the question should also be about the quality of teachers available to the students and the quality of the students themselves too.

Alden Tan Ek Kai