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 › 國際學校 › 小學讀際小學,中學時轉回傳統中學
樓主: heiB
go

小學讀際小學,中學時轉回傳統中學 [複製鏈接]

WYmom

Rank: 5Rank: 5


4747
81#
發表於 09-9-30 07:04 |只看該作者
原帖由 mow-mow 於 09-9-29 21:27 發表
Wisekid2007 & WYmom,
I'm afraid I do not buy your logic of including the kindergarten years which is actually not compulsory education and is often termed 'pre-school'.
Following your logic, then how  ...


I have explained and now you said you don't recognize that studying one more year of kinder is one more year of education and then that's your logic!  


You cannot just equate all Y1-13 UK cirriculum to local P.1-F.7 cirriculum, that's my originally point.  Kinder education in HK is quite intensive, not just playing around.  For example, local kids have already learnt addition and substraction upto 20 or more in K3 at age 6.  In UK IS Y.1, kids have finished only K2 at age 5 will learn this, just like local kids in K3. So you cannot just eliminate all pre-school education as education by saying that it is not compulsory while in reality that all kids start kinder at 3 or even at 2 until 6.

If you only talks about official rules, then the official rule for receiving primary education in HK is 6 years old, if I apply the same on UK IS kids, then their Y1(age 5) should not be counted as education as well, so according to your logic, students in UK IS receive 5 years of primary and 7 years of secondary education, while students in HK local schools receive 6 years of primary and 7 years of secondary education, is it so obvious that there is one year more?

For IS of US/ Canadian/Singapore system, students start primary at age 6, but they only study 6 years in secondary, but local HK students study 7 years in secondary, so it is so obvious that HK students receive one more year of education!  Can't you get it?

I just tell that it is the fact that HKCEE/HKAL is one year level higher than GCSE O/AL, if you don't buy this, you can take a look at the exams.  I know that internationally they are equally recognised as secondary/Pre-U graduation qualification, but it does not mean that the standard should be equalised.  It is really more favourable for HK students to take GCSE as they HAVE really received one more year of education even you deny it.   It is simply the fact!

I can only say that in the past HK students did learn more difficult syllubus than overseas students, their standard SHOULD be higher, but whether they are REALLY higher than others or not is another issue.  Now, with the new 334 system, they are par with the overseas students and their standard is to be assessed.

For University education, it is different from kinder to secondary, it is more a specialised career-oriented education rather than the basic education for everyone.  Some HK students take 4 or even 5 years of U education instead of 3, all depends on which profession.

[ 本帖最後由 WYmom 於 09-9-30 09:04 編輯 ]

返回頂部

畢學武

Rank: 3Rank: 3


187
82#
發表於 09-9-30 15:29 |只看該作者
忍不著再回應,

為什麼要說到美加星加坡呢?美加同英國學制完全不同,星加坡也不是單纯六年制中學(套用智慧小子的說話-做多点research 吧)。

又計一計年期,GCE yr10選科 HKCE F4選科,大家都有四年時來考A-Level,雖然本地學生比國際學校學生年紀大一年,但總沒相差太遠吧!

甚麽是正規教育應該是當地政府話事,所以我不會說香港K3是正規或英國Y1不是正規教育的話。現實是兩地都是十三年Pre-U正規教育,理得你是由一歲或十歲開始,香港K3程度深是個別學校的問題,理論上學生一年幼稚園也可不上。

很多人都說GCEAL比HKAL易考,原來是事實,
http://www.britishcouncil.org/eumd-hongkong-naric_briefing_note_29nov07.pdf
做報告的NARIC都乘認GCEALevel boardly comparable to HKAL

Quoted:
'The subjects are considered broadly comparable in terms of volume of study at both levels. In Hong Kong at the advanced level, students usually take 4-5 subjects. This is higher than the average number of A levels being taken in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but a review of volume indicates the syllabus and examinations are closer to A levels than AS levels. Therefore, it is legitimate to state that the HKALE is broadly comparable to a GCE A level. UK NARIC is adapting its comparison advice accordingly.'

我都不明白說GCE AL=HKAL為什麼會使一些國際學校家長有這麽大的反感,讀少一年,年輕一歲獲得相同學術成就不是很好嗎?有什麽問題呢?

我得乘認讀國際學校比本地學校好,可以愉快學習,少功課,壓力細,又比較容易入世界一流大學。而本地學校學生多功課,壓力大,又要大一年爭入二.三流大學,更常常被人話高分低能(對不起,智慧小子!),不過在這個家庭總收入平均每月得萬多兩萬元的社會,時常說國際學校比本地學校好而又不提出解決方法,衹會使人想起晉惠帝何不食肉糜的故事!

算了,真的不說了,算我和所有三年制大學的入學政策都錯了吧!(真的認錯了,不要再插我吧,求求你們!)

PS. Al媽,我沒有說過HKU學士=UK碩士。

[ 本帖最後由 畢學武 於 09-9-30 23:04 編輯 ]

返回頂部

mattsmum

Rank: 5Rank: 5


3693
83#
發表於 09-9-30 18:55 |只看該作者

回覆 1# 畢學武 的文章

hk A level C = gce A/B, that was my days in the 80s too.

返回頂部

papa_pop

Rank: 3Rank: 3


286
84#
發表於 09-9-30 19:10 |只看該作者
Your question is valid and it really concerns top universities like Oxbridge. Apart from straight-A*s in GCSE, they set conditional offers rather high.

My observation is that it's comparatively easier to score As at UK exams than in HK. Take a look at their respective percentages (some top high schools are talking about 90%+ scoring A+ at GCSE while even the very best HK schools can only get about 2.2 As out of 9 subjects on average).  Some UK schools, not the top 20, have dozen of students getting 10A*+.  IF one really wishes to enrol in Oxbridge, he/she should go to the UK for high school and take the GCSE (not IGCSE) and they stand a better chance.

Mind you that ONLY the really creme de la creme of HK students (8As+ in HKCEE) stands a chance for Oxbridge.   How many are there in a year and how many of them eyeing only Oxbridge?

Anyway, HKCEE will be a passe but I doubt the percentage of getting A in the new diploma exam would be any easier.

原帖由 BabaTed 於 09-9-26 02:20 發表
elmostoney & other parents,

I have a question regarding 'UK中五會考 is a lot easier than HKCEE' from a long time ago, and would seek the comments from parents here.


My hubby has few cousins studyin ...

返回頂部

‹ 上一主題|下一主題 ›
12345
返回列表
發新帖