- 在線時間
- 2 小時
- 最後登錄
- 19-7-10
- 國民生產力
- 0
- 附加生產力
- 109
- 貢獻生產力
- 0
- 註冊時間
- 10-5-20
- 閱讀權限
- 10
- 帖子
- 61
- 主題
- 0
- 精華
- 0
- 積分
- 170
- UID
- 616267
 
|
本帖最後由 easydad 於 12-4-11 14:45 編輯
Well, I usually don't pull legs here but with such attitude... I cannot resist to have some fun.
You wrote this -
本地最 top 英文嘅 DGJS，每年都有很多top students努力想插班入我孩子的學校，間中會有一兩個成功，而成功插入中學一年班(year 7)的，每年有四、五個(因為 year 7 開多一班)，那些插班的DGJS top students，除了數學 沒有問題(因為在DGJS操慣)，其他都要加倍努力，因為他們英文水平較低，而且絕大部份的習作都是要廣泛閱讀及自己搜隻資料來編寫及發表，與他們之前的學習及操練模式分別很大。
Then this -
此外，她們一定是top students，否則休想考得入，但我沒有說她們一定是成績最 top （其實在考試最top那些學生，尤其是小學 階段，通常都不是最有才華的學生，而是一班死操爛操的考試 機器，那些真正有才華的學生，會專注發展自己的興趣及才華，不喜歡操練式學習，但成績也不差卻不是最top)。
With this kind of logic, all DGJS students are top students? All GSIS students are also top students? Just because they can get in? Top and bottom is a relative term and varies in context. In your context, if you are applying this term to DGJS, it implies you are referring to top students within DGJS. I guess only you understand what you wrote yourself.
Perhaps an even more alarming issue is your tendency of over generalizing things. On the other side of the token, all students from lesser schools are lesser by definition? What is lesser? I guess one tends to worship what one lacks.
By the way, English is just a tool. It is important but so is Chinese. There should be a minimum requirement for both in order to get prepared for future. Key is to know what we lack and work on it.
|
|
發表於 12-4-11 10:53
