用戶登入
用戶名稱：
密      碼：
登記帳號忘記密碼

討論區

教育王國
教育講場
使用意見
幼兒教育
幼校討論
幼教雜談
小學教育
小一選校
小學雜談
中學教育
升中派位
中學交流
初中教育
專上教育
備戰大學
選科選校
國際教育
國際學校
海外留學
知識增值
課外活動
教材閱讀
公開考試
深造進修
特殊教育
特殊教育
資優教育
自閉寶寶
智能評估
徵求專區
二手市場
誠徵老師
組班專區
徵保母車

   聯絡管理員
搜索
教育王國 › 討論區 › 拔萃女小學 › del del del
樓主: lawsonmoon
go

del del del [複製鏈接]

LesMis99

Rank: 3Rank: 3


152
121#
發表於 11-3-16 10:27 |只看該作者
I think the appearance/look is more important than the address if two girls match all aspects except address + apperance/look.

原帖由 wingsma 於 11-3-16 10:05 發表
I’m not saying about the actual reason for the address checking by DGJS. I just want to point out that the 2 example canNOT CLEARLY INDICATE that address is not the critical factor. It can just indic ...

返回頂部

wingsma

Rank: 3Rank: 3


428
122#
發表於 11-3-16 15:58 |只看該作者
So you agreed that the school should considered the backgrounds and the appearance/look of the candidates. The address is a good source for the school to know about the background of the girls.

返回頂部

LesMis99

Rank: 3Rank: 3


152
123#
發表於 11-3-16 16:45 |只看該作者
Both you and I have agreed on the point that if a girl is smart, the address of residence is of unimportance. On the contrary, if a girl performed poorly, it would make no difference at all even she lived in a big house at Old Peak Rd as you pointed out in your earlier reply.

Regarding your second question, I think it sounds more resonable to screen the child's appearance than the child's residential address if all are being equal between two highly qualified candidates. People prefer a lovely, sweet and beautiful girl, don't they? A charming lady should have an added advantage in a job interview, shouldn't she? Given the choice, my conlusion is that appearance will be given a higher weighting than address.



原帖由 wingsma 於 11-3-16 15:58 發表
So you agreed that the school should considered the backgrounds and the appearance/look of the candidates. The address is a good source for the school to know about the background of the girls.

返回頂部

lawsonmoon

Rank: 5Rank: 5


2094
124#
發表於 11-3-16 19:05 |只看該作者
本帖最後由 lawsonmoon 於 12-3-16 15:14 編輯

del del del
原帖由 LesMis99 於 11-3-16 07:52 AM 發表
If address is that important, DG should not have asked "亞嬸" to check the original. They would have asked a senior teacher to do the checking. So, this tells me that DG does not treat address as impo ...

返回頂部

wingsma

Rank: 3Rank: 3


428
125#
發表於 11-3-16 19:32 |只看該作者
Western idiom says:
"Don't judge a book by its cover."

子曰︰以貌取人  失之子羽

It's OK for you and I to make friend with someone who is lovely, sweet, beautiful, rich ...etc, but not  school teachers or principal.

返回頂部

LesMis99

Rank: 3Rank: 3


152
126#
發表於 11-3-16 22:08 |只看該作者
I was also thinking the same way as you do but this world has already been changed so much! You won't believe it that education nowadays is no longer what it used to be! It is a product, something no better than a 'SHAMPOO'. Please excuse my comparison but this is a fact of life we need to be facing soon or later!

原帖由 wingsma 於 11-3-16 19:32 發表
Western idiom says:
"Don't judge a book by its cover."

子曰︰以貌取人  失之子羽

It's OK for you and I to make friend with someone who is lovely, sweet, beautiful, rich ...etc, but not  school teachers ...

返回頂部

4eyesDad

Rank: 5Rank: 5


2830
127#
發表於 11-3-17 00:25 |只看該作者

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.

返回頂部

LesMis99

Rank: 3Rank: 3


152
128#
發表於 11-3-17 07:48 |只看該作者
Wingsma's early comment has probably pointed out one key and critical point that everyone might have just slipped their eyes. The applicants themselves are the key to the whole admission process (99% weighting). As some other parents have already stressed that no schools will refuse a smart and bright student. Wingsma also claimed by saying that a smart girl from Tin Shui Wai could be offered a place while another from luxurious area might fail due to their ability.

Potential applicants should focus more and more on how to help train kids for a better performance at the interview and don't spend too much time on worrying about one's wealth or address vetting for example. More encouragement and less comparison will definitely help boost kid's and parents' confidence. Also, given the size of the applicants, it is nothing wrong for not being selected.

It is hard to change people's mindset, let alone an organization or even the government. For example, why do we need to carry ID card in HK? Think about it! People from Mainland China is now the pillow of HK's economy. What is the point of still keeping this policy? Never heard of such thing in other countries indeed. Who really care about it?

原帖由 wingsma 於 11-3-16 10:05 發表
I’m not saying about the actual reason for the address checking by DGJS. I just want to point out that the 2 example canNOT CLEARLY INDICATE that address is not the critical factor. It can just indic ...

[ 本帖最後由 LesMis99 於 11-3-17 09:56 編輯 ]

返回頂部

LesMis99

Rank: 3Rank: 3


152
129#
發表於 11-3-17 08:20 |只看該作者
I was surprised to see that DG headmistress (Mrs. Dai) did conduct the interview herself last Nov. This convinced me that girls' performance at the interview came first (and is 99% weighting). All other 'supporting' document appeared to be so minor as I can see it after going through the whole DG selection process. This is really a hard and tough process, not 1-5 applicants but hundreds. So the school has won my respect!

原帖由 4eyesDad 於 11-3-17 00:25 發表
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 ...

返回頂部

sumyin518

Rank: 3Rank: 3


222
130#
發表於 11-3-17 09:18 |只看該作者
Hi LesMis99,

200% agreed and supported.

May I know how is your daughter's school life in P.1 at DGJS?

Happy? Any great pressure in academic and comparsion between students and parents?

Thanks a lot.

返回頂部

MyFriends

Rank: 1


28
131#
發表於 11-3-17 13:23 |只看該作者
That's a good point. Let's stick to the rule then:

                1  :  99


原帖由 LesMis99 於 11-3-17 08:20 發表
I was surprised to see that DG headmistress (Mrs. Dai) did conduct the interview herself last Nov. This convinced me that girls' performance at the interview came first (and is 99% weighting). All oth ...

返回頂部

lawsonmoon

Rank: 5Rank: 5


2094
132#
發表於 11-3-17 17:04 |只看該作者
本帖最後由 lawsonmoon 於 12-3-16 15:16 編輯

del del del
原帖由 LesMis99 於 11-3-17 08:20 AM 發表
I was surprised to see that DG headmistress (Mrs. Dai) did conduct the interview herself last Nov. This convinced me that girls' performance at the interview came first (and is 99% weighting). All oth ...

返回頂部

lawsonmoon

Rank: 5Rank: 5


2094
133#
發表於 11-3-17 17:14 |只看該作者
本帖最後由 lawsonmoon 於 12-3-16 15:16 編輯

del del del.
原帖由 4eyesDad 於 11-3-17 12:25 AM 發表
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 ...

返回頂部

hitbadguy

Rank: 2


49
134#
發表於 11-3-17 17:39 |只看該作者
So, do you mean that Mrs. Dai did interview all applicants 2 years ago? Then they have changed the practise and let some officials to add some magic in the 1st interview.

So, in this year, your daughter can pass the 1st interview due to the magic.

Then in the second interview, Ms. Dai failed your daughter in the 2nd interview, right?



原帖由 lawsonmoon 於 11-3-17 17:04 發表
Mrs. Dai did interview every single candidate (i.e. only 1 interview) 2 years ago. After that, they changed to 2 interviews, Mrs. Dai can only interview those chosen by other officials after the first ...

[ 本帖最後由 hitbadguy 於 11-3-17 17:41 編輯 ]

返回頂部

4eyesDad

Rank: 5Rank: 5


2830
135#
發表於 11-3-17 17:41 |只看該作者

回覆 128# LesMis99 的文章

The education culture in Hong Kong resembles a club culture. Some parents think their kids should be educated with kids from similar background. Kids from less well-off families should not be in the same school. After all, they think schools are like private country clubs where their kids do not play or mix with non-members. Private country clubs have their own selection procedure. It is natural for them to think that private schools should have their own vigorous selection process, even though it has been pointed out that one particular procedure is unnecessary and improper.

In this forum, address inspectors dispute whether address vetting is unnecessary. They also dispute whether address vetting is improper.

The messages from DGJS corps of address-inspectors are clear: “If you don’t like the address vetting as part of the application process, don’t apply” and “Even if the Headmistress has full knowledge of the address vetting process, so what?”

They must be right, mustn't they? Why should we care about the propriety of a private primary school’s admission policy anyway?

返回頂部

lawsonmoon

Rank: 5Rank: 5


2094
136#
發表於 11-3-17 18:14 |只看該作者
本帖最後由 lawsonmoon 於 12-3-16 15:17 編輯

del del del
原帖由 hitbadguy 於 11-3-17 05:39 PM 發表
So, do you mean that Mrs. Dai did interview all applicants 2 years ago? Then they have changed the practise and let some officials to add some magic in the 1st interview.

So, in this year, your daugh ...

返回頂部

hitbadguy

Rank: 2


49
137#
發表於 11-3-17 19:02 |只看該作者
I am confused!

You always mention that the selection criteria is due to address. And you also mentioned some magic existed in the 1st interview. Now, you said you will not know their selection criteria?????


原帖由 lawsonmoon 於 11-3-17 18:14 發表
Yes, they just changed it to 2 interviews these 2 years.
We will not know their selection criteria, but the fact is that Mrs. Dai will not be able to interview every single candidate, she can only mee ...

返回頂部

lawsonmoon

Rank: 5Rank: 5


2094
138#
發表於 11-3-17 19:44 |只看該作者
本帖最後由 lawsonmoon 於 12-3-16 15:18 編輯

del del del

原帖由 hitbadguy 於 11-3-17 05:39 PM 發表
So, do you mean that Mrs. Dai did interview all applicants 2 years ago? Then they have changed the practise and let some officials to add some magic in the 1st interview.

So, in this year, your daugh ...

返回頂部

hitbadguy

Rank: 2


49
139#
發表於 11-3-17 21:22 |只看該作者
Why you attack me?

I only asked you "You always mention that the selection criteria is due to address. And you also mentioned some magic existed in the 1st interview. Now, you said you will not know their selection criteria?????"

Why don't you answer the question but move to another area?

I really don't care about whether your daughter will be finally accepted by DGJS or not. It was your business to send your girl to attend DGJS's interviews.




原帖由 lawsonmoon 於 11-3-17 19:44 發表
Don't be so naive.
I created this thread right after the 2nd interview and before the result announcement. If I really eager to send my girl to this school, I should have not posted this thread or AF ...

[ 本帖最後由 hitbadguy 於 11-3-17 21:23 編輯 ]

返回頂部

MyFriends

Rank: 1


28
140#
發表於 11-3-18 07:58 |只看該作者
Hi Mr. lawsonmoon, I am so curious on what had happened on the day of your 2nd interview that made you so angry. Did you bring along the original address proof when you attended the 2nd interview? I got the feelings that you probably forgot to produce the original one and you felt discriminated. That was why you posted the thread and voiced your concerns.

原帖由 lawsonmoon 於 11-3-17 19:44 發表
I created this thread right after the 2nd interview and before the result announcement.

返回頂部

‹ 上一主題|下一主題 ›
1 ...234567891011下一頁
返回列表
發新帖