- 在線時間
- 258 小時
- 最後登錄
- 23-9-30
- 國民生產力
- 4
- 附加生產力
- 2004
- 貢獻生產力
- 0
- 註冊時間
- 10-11-5
- 閱讀權限
- 10
- 帖子
- 822
- 主題
- 21
- 精華
- 0
- 積分
- 2830
- UID
- 676014
|
回覆 122# wingsma 的文章
Private schools like DGJS do not have catchment areas. When it diligently vets applicant’s address as part of its application procedure, it evokes a strong odour of impropriety.
What is the point of vetting applicant’s address for Primary 1 admission selection? Put off applicants from Junk Bay? Encourage applicants from Repulse Bay?
It should be easy to drop address vetting simply because there is no significant benefit or, as some have repeatedly argued, no significant weight in admissions selection. It will also save time. But DGJS staff may enjoy the annual winter sport of vetting and spotting the most expensive address from the enormous pool of wealthy applicants. This is their annual Christmas entertainment – probably the only entertainment for the whole year. They may say to each other, “Your applicant’s $250,000 monthly lease at Headland Road is less than mine at Barker Road!” or “Should we pick a couple of applicants from Junk Bay this year for PR purposes?”
It may well be that the Headmistress of DGJS is unaware of all the shenanigans. (Owing to the large number of applicants, the Headmistress is no longer able to interview all candidates personally.) The question is not whether, but when, DGJS will abandon address vetting as part of its application procedure. |
|