教育王國
標題: 無限風光 在新高中 [打印本頁]
作者: elbar 時間: 12-12-27 10:17 標題: 無限風光 在新高中
http://www.singtao.com/news_special/kas/index.asp?id=6547
聖誕假期，有人留港過節，有人外出散心，不少中產父母，則會飛到外地，跟留學子女度聖誕。近年，中產家庭子女放洋成風，長假期不是子女回港團聚，就是父母外出探訪，所有升學資訊，都是有在學子女市民的熱門話題。
五**喜接佳音
今個月，教育局首次公布新高中會考的成績，最高級別的五**，獲英國大學及院校招生事務處（UCAS），評為一百四十五分，比英國GCE A Level最好評級的一百四十分還要高，簡單點說，如果在香港拿到這個成績，應可以橫掃英國的名校，對於要在港應考的家長，理應是好消息。
現屆政府上台後，教育局面對不少棘手難題，國教引來軒然大波，打得相關官員手足無措，其後殺來的中學減班，教育局驚魂甫定，好不容易拆了彈。本來，按照政府的預算，新高中考試實施，無論在資歷評審和學生應考，都有不少實際問題要顧慮，因為考試涉及學生升學，學校和家長都非常緊張，只要稍出亂子，後果可以非常巨大。
有大學校長認同
過去，會考和大學入學試，都是採用水平參照形式，今次改制不無風險，但現在五**獲得甚高評價，至少在評審上令負責官員鬆了一口氣。放假前，齊秀峰和大學校長談起這次改制，校長反應頗為正面，認為新高中考試雖曾惹起批評，但外國不少考評機構，其實非常羨慕香港可以這樣改革，相信這個考試假以時日，必定可以獲得很高的國際認受性。
五**獲得外國認可，對新高中改制打了一支強心針，但革命是否就此成功呢？相信路途還很遙遠，因為考試制度有不同用家，收生學校是持份者之一，學生家長是另一個。今年的新高中考試，評分出來似乎相當手鬆，但有大專界認為，原先當局用作參考的「三三二二」入學成績，很大可能是低估了入學標準，不少取得這個成績的學生，日後會發覺不易獲得八所資助學校收錄，屆時可能就會出現問題。
家長疑慮仍未息
另外，今年不少考生在中文科觸礁，將來中文科是否需要調整，以及如何調整，仍然有待斟酌。最重要的是，現在無論學生和家長，仍在新制的適應期，中間有很多焦慮和不滿，如何盡早減低他們的不安感覺，是相關政策局一大要務。
推行多年的教育改革，希望減少學生考試壓力，推動讀書不是求分數的文化，現實是本地資助大學學位有限，外出升學費用不斷增加，新高中考試的壓力揮之不去，考試評審獲得外國良好反應，是好的開始，卻不能解決所有問題，所以教育局要把握好消息帶來的寶貴機會，優化和推動新制，如果錯過了時機，到氣候逆轉，再做就已經太遲。
作者: ANChan59 時間: 12-12-27 12:25
過去，會考和大學入學試，都是採用水平參照形式，
不是HKDSE才改為水平參照.... 以前是拉Curve吧！
作者: chunyatmama 時間: 12-12-28 09:29
本帖最後由 chunyatmama 於 12-12-28 09:32 編輯
It's interesting that the press would like to describ it as something good!? What so good? Why we need the students to face such difficult examination? Why not line up the standard with other countries? Why those kids from US or UK do not need to take such a difficult exam but they still can fly high with colour in their future? Why torture our kids?
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-12-28 11:06
回復 chunyatmama 的帖子
It is a total failure of our Education Department.
In DSE, only about 10% students would get 5. Out of that 10%, about 30% would get 5* and 10% would get 5**.
If there are 10,000 students attempted a particular subject, about 100 students would get 5** and 300 would get 5*.
The top score for a subject is about 4% in HKDSE.
No matter it is IB, AL or AP, the highest score would be around 15% to 20%, some subjects may have 30% top scores.
Why do we need the colonial education system to classify the students? Our Education Department owes us an explanation.
Can we say that a student gets more 5** is better than one who get the same number of score 5 (without the star or 2 stars)? The answer is obviously no.
The drop of 5* and 5** is a way out. 10% of the students taking a particular subject obtaining the highest score is in line with the overseas standard. There is nothing to celebrate that our 5** is awarded the highest UCAS score. Definitely it is not a good news.
作者: abcd0001 時間: 12-12-28 12:07
Shootastar 發表於 12-12-28 11:06 
回復 chunyatmama 的帖子
It is a total failure of our Education Department.
Basically, I agree your point.
In order to gain the recognition from oversea, I think, they intent to set a higher stardand for level 5 which is a reference point for the whole system.
I would guess the whole log of F6 student to take GCE AL, the % of getting A or above should not less than 20%, 10% is articifically marked down.
It is depended on the department to adjust the % of level 5 in the coming years to reflect the fair standard of HK students. It is told level 5 is a fixed standard which the % of student should be variable ie can go up quickly!
作者: judy 時間: 12-12-28 12:52
任何國家大家，都是收最Top某個%嘅人入學。對返轉頭，港人全考GCE AL、英國考DSE，我估整日呼天搶地的仍是港人。現時港人考GCE AL覺輕鬆，只因第一多學位、第二對手弱。
要港人仔女覺得輕鬆，除非，1.當增加大學學額至50%人可入U。2.當每對夫婦生3至4個。3.當讀完大學出來掃街都冇所謂的時候。
"無限風光在高中"，top2%勤力港人，比人家top10%只多10幾分，已開心成咁，低鬼能。
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-12-28 15:27
回復 judy 的帖子
Although there are more than 10% of highest grade in each subject (no matter IB, AP or AL), the elite colleges in the world (such as Oxbridge, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT etc) can differentiate the top students.
The elite or top colleges would use a holistic approach to assess a student for admission purpose. They use a number of indicators to differentiate the students, such as the scores of the public examination, the performance at school, the personal statement, the school and counsellor's recommendations, performance at the interview, activities, services, special talents, leadership skills etc. They would not use the public examination result as the sole factor to admit students.
It is quite outdated to rely on the public examination as the sole factor to admit students. For most elite schools, so long as you obtain a level of performance (such as IB:38, AL: 4A or A*, SAT: 2,200 etc), they would not mind whether you have IB 43, 44 or 45.
The differentiation of 5 into 5* and 5** in DSE examination create unnecessary pressure and anguish to the students (even they are top students in Hong Kong). This is a bad policy indeed.
作者: chunyatmama 時間: 12-12-28 15:44
Shootastar 發表於 12-12-28 15:27
回復 judy 的帖子
Although there are more than 10% of highest grade in each subject (no matter IB, A ...
Well said!
To me, a straight A student or a straight B student makes no difference to me as they are academically up to standard. Yet, a good quality student with leadership skill, willing to serve the classmates and community and a well presented personal statement will definitely with additional marks!
作者: judy 時間: 12-12-28 17:41
The elite or top colleges would use a holistic approach to assess a student for admission purpose. They use a number of indicators to differentiate the students, such as the scores of the public examination, the performance at school, the personal statement, the school and counsellor's recommendations, performance at the interview, activities, services, special talents, leadership skills etc. They would not use the public examination result as the sole factor to admit students.
我就咁諗，呢啲係分數通脹，考評失效而各校補救措施。
如教評局如將分數升呢，入大學率不變，學校、學生不會因此更舒服。學生一樣要勤力才能入U，就象今年一樣，4455才有望入U，變成5*5*5*5*才有機入U，得到４個5*的人，會因而更高興嗎？
當4個5*才有機入U時，學生競爭的戰場不是DSE了，而是平時無時無刻的考試，非正常的服務(有國際視野嗰啲)、課外活動，面試班。現在，當我聽見有父母為子女入大學而安排n場面試練習時，我仍可竊笑其有咁純品嘅孩子(肯俾嗰老豆舞n次)，但將來，可能變成常態.....
國民黨退守台灣前，聽說要挑一担錢才可吃碗麵，老一輩人視之為苦，估唔到依家有人豎起拇指，仲掩嘴笑啲唔喜歡通帳嘅人。
老人家挑一担錢，我哋可視之為浪費气力。學校、僱主要花九牛二虎之力才可分出優劣，係唔係社會資源嘅浪費呢？
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-12-29 11:23
本帖最後由 Shootastar 於 12-12-29 11:59 編輯
The purpose of education is not only to provide knowledge to our kids. It helps dedicate their minds to inquiry, their hearts to compassion and their lives to service and understanding.
Services and leadership skills help to develop one's passion. the skills of enquiry and analytic minds are transferable and useful in future studies or employment. So it is important that our kids could develop such skills while they receive their secondary education. Without passion, the kids only apply the knowledge learnt in a mechanical way. Passion in fact makes people to do great things.
The award of a score 5 in HKDSE is based on the attainment of a benchmark. So the students of score 5 should obtain the benchmark whether he is a 5, 5* or 5** student.
On the other hand, it takes a lot of energy and time for them to compete (or obtain) for a 5* (or even 5**). If 5* and 5** are scrapped, the students could have more time on learning other transferable skills for their whole lives.
It is therefore a matter of wasting resources of the society in asking the students to compete for a 5* and 5** and disregard other aspects of learning.
Certainly, it is not a matter of wasting resources of the society if the employers are not provided with a diploma having 5* or 5**. The employers and colleges would know how the students perform with regard to other indicators so as to make an informed decision on the applicants. This explains why Oxbridge only requires an offer of IB:41 or AAA* (AL). Most elite colleges in UK (other than Oxbridge) would just require IB:38 or AAA (A-L)for medicine or law. They do not require A*A*A* or IB 41. In case of US colleges, they adopt the holistic approach many years ago.
All elite colleges in the world would know how to differentiate good students based on their "top" scores - which has 10% to 20% out of tens of thousands of applicants.
I am afraid that the point of divergence is the purpose of education.
作者: ANChan59 時間: 12-12-29 14:46
回復 Shootastar 的帖子
明白的人會明白，唔明白始終唔明白。
有多少家長的子女如你孩子般優秀，你的分享對我來說是有說服力，是普通認知，而非甚麼大法，真言。好有參考價值。
作者: youma 時間: 13-2-11 23:02
Shootastar 發表於 12-12-29 11:23 
The purpose of education is not only to provide knowledge to our kids. It helps dedicate their minds ...
Top universities will spend even more effort to identify the elite students to fill up the places.
For some specialized disciplines like law, math, medicine, natural sciences, actuary, every society needs the elites. We select the most outstanding suitable students to pursue under the limited number of university places.
We do not have infinite resources for the training.
作者: Shootastar 時間: 13-2-13 10:16
回復 youma 的帖子
I agree with you that we need elite students to study medicine, law, actuary, or others and serve the society. The differentiation of elite students, however, should not be limited to the sole indicators of the number of 5 star or 5 star star. As said in the above, we should use a number of indicators to make the differentiation.
I know you are in disagreement with me. I am afraid that the point of divergence is the meaning and purpose of education.
作者: whooammii 時間: 13-2-16 14:08
提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽
作者: laorenjia 時間: 13-2-16 17:06
回復 whooammii 的帖子
My dear friend, we are talking about students who score 5 or above. If a student obtaines an average of 5 in all subjects, we are talking about the top 3 or 4% of the students already. These student sure will have an offer from a local university. You're talking totally different things.
作者: whooammii 時間: 13-2-16 19:17
提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽
作者: eschung 時間: 13-2-16 22:52
DSE的學生為了爭取那少數的星星入讀心儀學系，被迫將所有時間投放在有限的科目和考試範圍内，每天離不開補课、補習、及操練，那份壓力比當年會考更甚，讀書以外的能力和德育品格相對變得毫不重要。當初新增的OLE ，面試或個人陳述都變得形同虚設。在這種制度下只能訓練出一班急功近利的考場高手而非全能精英。未來的香港需要更多認真探求學問，具創意和品格高尚的大學生，新高中只是换湯不換藥的考試制度，實在無補於事。
作者: ANChan59 時間: 13-2-17 13:36
回復 eschung 的帖子
同意，所以選正式的 lB，而棄現時虛有其表的NSS，讓孩子在付出後得回終身受用的回報。
OLE是要有策略，輔導，及挑戰性。面試要有不少準備，個人描述十分有啓發性及前瞻性。試問一般學校如何做得到，數星星易些，其他做更多，學生冇乜星星，都是冇用。
作者: laorenjia 時間: 13-2-17 15:42
To Whooammii
Sorry.原來你知道自己講嘅嘢係唔同嘅嘢。
作者: judy 時間: 13-2-18 11:16
DSE的學生為了爭取那少數的星星入讀心儀學系，被迫將所有時間投放在有限的科目和考試範圍内，每天離不開補课、補習、及操練，那份壓力比當年會考更甚，讀書以外的能力和德育品格相對變得毫不重要。當初新增的OLE ，面試或個人陳述都變得形同虚設。在這種制度下只能訓練出一班急功近利的考場高手而非全能精英。未來的香港需要更多認真探求學問，具創意和品格高尚的大學生，新高中只是换湯不換藥的考試制度，實在無補於事。
假使DSE嘅成績跟英國會考或IB咁逐年通帳，星不再是星，5即是星、甚至4即是星，情形又如何呢？咁樣吹水又得：
由於拿星星嘅人比大學容量還多，學生被迫將大部分時間投放在課外活動，由於學生眾多，獨居老人家或弱勢社群人數不足，初初，老人家被迫加班被服務以照顧眾多學生。後來，被服務沿變成生意，弱勢社群因收取被服務費得以脫貧。另外，為了突出服務嘅"含金量"，大批港童參加非洲服務。
......."讀書、運動、服務" 最終變成訓練出一班急功近利的吹水"全能精英"。
作者: Shootastar 時間: 13-2-18 11:45
回復 judy 的帖子
I would like to comment as follows:
假使DSE嘅成績跟英國會考或IB咁逐年通帳，星不再是星，5即是星、甚至4即是星，情形又如何呢？咁樣吹水又得：
You miss the most basic point that DSE is graded according to the benchmark obtained by the students. In actual case, the students with 5, 5* or 5** reach the same benchmark (which are enough for college admission purpose). It would not help if you make a fine distinction amongst those score 5 students - they all attain the same benchmark.
由於拿星星嘅人比大學容量還多，學生被迫將大部分時間投放在課外活動，由於學生眾多，獨居老人家或弱勢社群人數不足，初初，老人家被迫加班被服務以照顧眾多學生。後來，被服務沿變成生意，弱勢社群因收取被服務費得以脫貧。另外，為了突出服務嘅"含金量"，大批港童參加非洲服務。
......."讀書、運動、服務" 最終變成訓練出一班急功近利的吹水"全能精英"。
Again you misss the point that our discussion is premised upon the attainment of a benchmark. You are blending the irrelevant issue of "grade inflation" in our discussion. I will discuss with you further on the grade inflation if you issue another thread.
Turning to the example quoted by you, you purposely omit the point that the students should obtain the benchmark (i.e. score 5 or 4 depending on the requirement of different subjects) before other indicators would play a role in the admission purpose. The scenario described by you has not happened in any place or country, and definitely would not happen in the future.
Contrary to the scenario quoted by you, all leading colleges in the USA or UK would use other indicators to differentiate an applicant to see if he is fit to study in the college or a particular subject.
作者: judy 時間: 13-2-18 11:50
星是星、5是5、4是４，名正言順，好嘢來嘅。大學學位少，自自然然要4、要5才能入學。假使學位多了，自自然然3322也能入學。這又和甚麼德育、體育有何關係呢？好像分數唔通脹就沒有了德育體育似啲。
講到摘星嘅人好似唔使努力讀書，淨係讀分數，是虛的咁。可能有啲人係咁啦，虛虛地考入大學，又虛虛地吔到食，跟住虛虛地也諗到人地係虛嘅。
作者: Shootastar 時間: 13-2-18 12:35
回復 judy 的帖子
I would like to further comment as follows:
星是星、5是5、4是４，名正言順，好嘢來嘅。大學學位少，自自然然要4、要5才能入學。假使學位多了，自自然然3322也能入學。這又和甚麼德育、體育有何關係呢？好像分數唔通脹就沒有了德育體育似啲。
It seems that you have missed another point that we are discussing the ways to differentiate "good" students from others. Whether the differentiation is based on number of 5* or 5** or based on score 5 but including other indicators. I suggest you to post a new thread to discuss "grade inflation". I will respond you substantially in that aspect.
講到摘星嘅人好似唔使努力讀書，淨係讀分數，是虛的咁。可能有啲人係咁啦，虛虛地考入大學，又虛虛地吔到食，跟住虛虛地也諗到人地係虛嘅
It appears that your quote is out of your own fantasy. Everybody is of the opinion that one needs extra effort to obtain 5* or 5**. Nobody is of the opinion that he needs no effort to obtain a 5* or 5**. Contrary to your quote, it is my opinion that if he should spend his energy on other aspects if he is a score 5 material. It is more beneficial to him if he learns other skills than to obtain a 5* or 5**.
作者: judy 時間: 13-2-18 12:37
Shootstar，
人老啦，真係唔知你講咩！我試吓講多啲，睇撞唔撞中你個point：
3322已是benchmark啦，學位少，自然要4455，有些科目搶手，自自然然要5*或5**。沒有5*或5**，學生的競争自然轉到其他方面(這或是你的)。現在反而要留意的是當IB或英國試年年通脹嘅情况下，如不提升入學要求，對本地生實不公平。
我嘅仔侄輩勤力讀書，也熱心服務、努力煅練身體。我估，佢地唔會係要得到"other indicators"而做這些吧！對我而講，我情愿孩子多啲帮忙家務，而少點去取那些"other indicators"。帮人帮到咁市儈,我唔想要！
作者: Shootastar 時間: 13-2-18 13:12
回復 judy 的帖子
I would like to further comment as below:
人老啦，真係唔知你講咩！我試吓講多啲，睇撞唔撞中你個point：
If there is any point you do not understand, I am glad to further explain. Please let me know if you need assistance.
3322已是benchmark啦，學位少，自然要4455，有些科目搶手，自自然然要5*或5**。沒有5*或5**，學生的競争自然轉到其他方面(這或是你的)。現在反而要留意的是當IB或英國試年年通脹嘅情况下，如不提升入學要求，對本地生實不公平。
I am talking about the benchmark of a score 5. Nobody in this thread discusses the benchmark of 3322. My point is if one has attained the benchmark of 5, there is no need to ask him to run an extra mile for the purposes of differentiation of 5* or 5**. The HKEAA does not set a benchmark for 5* or 5**. It just allocate 10% (of the 5 scorers) to 5**, 30% to 5* [from the benchmark of score 5].
我嘅仔侄輩勤力讀書，也熱心服務、努力煅練身體。我估，佢地唔會係要得到"other indicators"而做這些吧！對我而講，我情愿孩子多啲帮忙家務，而少點去取那些"other indicators"。帮人帮到咁市儈,我唔想要！
From you own perspective, you are probably correct. However, I think the leading colleges in the world would not agree with you.
作者: laorenjia 時間: 13-2-18 13:27
本帖最後由 laorenjia 於 13-2-18 21:04 編輯
Judy
有五分，已經夠叻喇，無需要再細分。如果剩係計sat分數收學生，頭嗰啲美國大學全部變成亞洲人+猶太人大學。It is the responsibility of the universities to select the suitable ones out of the already very capable students. It is simply impossible for hk to have grade inflation like you said. The leading universities in the world do not rely entirely on academic results. Once you are over the cutoff marks, other factors kick in. Once you have the chance to interview for a place at oxbridge, your academic abilities have already been assumed. If we look around, it is probably only China which still relies on exam marks totally for university admission.
According the HKEAA, 0.1% of 2012 HKDSE candidates have five 5** or above, 1% five 5* or above, 3.9% five 5 or above. Most hot majors count 6 subjects. Then I would think 5* is already more than adequate. 5** is harmful and unecessay. I would be horrified if it had been the local universities which asked for such grades to be set up in HKDSE.
| 歡迎光臨 教育王國 (/) |
Powered by Discuz! X1.5 |