Beyond Grades: A-Levels, IGPs & the Shift to Holistic Admissions

Singapore’s A-Level results are coming out at the end of this month, and many students are understandably anxious about what their grades will mean for university admissions and long-term career prospects.

1. From JC cut-offs to university IGPs

For post-JC pathways, the Indicative Grade Profiles (IGPs) now play a similar role to AL and O-Level cut-off points for secondary school and JC admissions. They show the 10th and 90th percentile grades of students who actually secured places in the previous cycle, giving a rough sense of how competitive each course is.

But like JC cut-offs, IGPs are descriptive, not predictive. They tell you what last year’s successful applicants looked like, not a guaranteed score for this year. Universities explicitly state that meeting the past IGPs does not guarantee an offer in the current admissions exercise.

2. NUS pulling ahead (based on entry grades)

If you look across the latest published IGPs from NUS, NTU, SMU and SUTD, NUS is clearly positioning itself as the most academically competitive option based on grades alone.

Many NUS programmes now hover around AAA/A at the 10th–90th percentile range for A-Level applicants, broadening beyond Law and Medicine to Business Analytics, Common Computer Science Programmes, Pharmaceutical Science and PPE. This reflects a very tight band of top scorers all applying or rushing for Singapore’s oldest university. Afterall, its name already states it is the country’s national university.

3. “Grade meritocracy” vs holistic admissions

Singapore has long practised what many Singaporeans call “grade meritocracy”: admissions and opportunities heavily anchored on exam performance. The language has now shifted perceptibly in recent years towards “holistic admissions”, with universities using aptitude-based admissions (ABA) explicitly by considering interviews, personal achievements, research and community service portfolios.

But in practice, this can feel very grey. As an example: How do you weigh a Physics Olympiad gold medallist against someone who has actually designed and built a working satellite prototype, or led a major ground-up community initiative? There is no simple rubric that can “objectively” compare such diverse forms of excellence, unlike a standardized national exam like the A-levels.

4. The arms race for branding and “ROI”

Ironically, the move towards holistic admissions, plus MOE’s reduction of universities’ A-Level evaluation to focus on just 3 H2s and GP may instead be intensifying the arms race for “brand-name” university places rather than easing it.

Families and students double down on chasing AAA/A outcomes and the most competitive courses, assuming that the most selective degree in the “top” university automatically leads to high-paying, future-proof careers, even though graduate outcomes vary widely across industries and market cycles and are not guaranteed just by clearing a high IGP bar.

5. SUTD’s outlier stance

Interestingly, SUTD does not publish the same style of 10th–90th percentile IGP tables for A-Level applicants, and instead emphasizes programme fit, design mindset and portfolios over pure grades.

On their official FAQ, they even advise students who did poorly at A-Levels to consider retaking the exam or first pursuing a polytechnic diploma (with possible module exemptions), then reapplying. A more developmental stance than simply using grades to close the door.

6. A note to anxious students (and parents)

If you are getting your A-Level results soon, IGPs are a useful reference point but they are not your destiny.

Think of them as one data point alongside your genuine interests, portfolio, interviews, and alternative pathways (poly diplomas, private universities, overseas options, work-first routes), which can all lead to meaningful and sustainable careers even if you don’t land in the “highest IGP” course this year.