強烈要求教會學校查証領洗紙來源

hellomickey

5分宗教分十分合理,因為有共同理念及信仰(我非教徒)
但校友果5分就唔公平喇!畢業咗N多年,對学校有什麽貢獻,有什麽歸屬感?那麽,我中大，港大畢業,是否將來仔女入讀又可以加分!!

有感而發,不喜勿插

Sindy

原帖由 DaddyX 於 10-10-3 23:36 發表


十分認同
而且教會影響力很大同的確教會的努力不可沒殺
父母分表面上的確比較難解
估計是刻意加入防止學位被宗教分在自行搶晒以作平衡因教會始終會堅持保留一些權力 ...

校友係其他學校,可能無乜貢獻,但係傳統名校就唔同,不時返黎幫手搞講座(名人既話),不時出錢出力協助重建,只要母校一聲,個個都願意效力,校友係名校,辛苦地考好成績,省靚母校既招牌,吸引家長報讀,如果無呢堆校友,會有人揀咩?

早前聖類斯好似要開一班中文班,黎耀祥即去學校,以振聲勢

Ving

So, I say in the last discussion thread

1. All schools (Govt/Sub/DSS/Private) to go through interview process and choose the good student (base on ability and performance) - But people will just say time-consuming and unrealistic to implement

2. All schools go through lucky draw as you also mentioned. Everthing determines from luck - But people will just say like gambling and unrealistic to implement

The pointing system is most unfair (fake address, fake religion certificate happened many many times over years) and people just use all kinds of dirty means to achieve the objective. Is this something contrary to education principle?- But people just use many reasons to protect only because they have those marks and relations. And any change will just make them lose those benefit.

Remember those Govt/Sub money also came from taxpayer like you and me. Should we have the right to mention out those unfair things and let edb officials be aware(who receive high wages) to solve it and improve it. By the way, I don't think we are just complaint machine.

原帖由 fongyuen 於 10-10-3 22:59 發表


55%並非一個細小百分比(如果你所言非虛的話)，那這55%的學生正在承受因居住區外所受的衝擊，可見家長揀學校，是否名校似乎比交通是否方便更重要。

我想點出的，是家長面對大抽獎時，可以不顧後果，不會將子女是否適合入讀放在 ...

thomasha

I do not have the 5 marks but I support the existence of this 5 marks.

If something is not significant, I doubt if anyone would bother giving reasons to support it.  In fact, if there are thousands of reasons to support its continuation, shouldn't this majority opinion be respected?

In this thread, many people have given arguments for and against keeping the 5 marks.  Some of them are not entitled to the 5 marks.  Some even explained the background of its existence.  I hope you will be open-minded enough to read through everything, and will understand that this may be the least evil of currently available solutions.

原帖由 Ving 於 10-10-3 22:22 發表
Hi fongyuen,

I think that if you don't have the 5 marks and then you complain that the religion 5 mark is not fair, then people will only pointing the finger say that you are "Complain Machine" and n ...

Ving

"fairness does not equate best"

Now, I understand why there is so many "Fake address, Fake certifications, York Kindergarten problem" in Hong Kong.

原帖由 hophopbunny 於 10-10-3 23:50 發表


What"improvement" do you suggest ? 100% lucky draw or 100% exams again ? Pls bear in mind fairness does not equate best.

It's so easy to blame and complain. 投訴人唔使本。

panbaby

之前不是另一文章已吵過一次?  我看過之前的文章, 只有一個感想, 大家你有你講, 我有我講... 其他人講到口水乾都是錯...

何不去教育政策個專題去講?

thomasha

The core issue is how to prevent such behaviour, rather than 因噎廢食. Do you stop believing people altogether just because there are liars out there?  Do you stop walking on the street just because there is risk of falling objects?

You may say there are flaws when the allocation system is implemented.  I believe these flaws can be rectified with suitable preventive controls (e.g. a deterrent punishment for using fake means or documents) and detective controls (e.g. thorough checking of documents submitted).  

We can have an allocation system suitable to the most people but I don't think any allocation system will be regarded as acceptable by all.  

原帖由 Ving 於 10-10-3 23:50 發表
The pointing system is most unfair (fake address, fake religion certificate happened many many times over years) and people just use all kinds of dirty means to achieve the objective. Is this something contrary to education principle?- But people just use many reasons to protect only because they have those marks and relations. And any change will just make them lose those benefit.

thomasha

有d人無論你講乜佢可以話你錯，人地理據多又話係支持現有制度o既藉口，根本就唔係討論，只係想人地覺得佢o岩，睇黎都係慳返d時間去真係討論其他話題。

原帖由 panbaby 於 10-10-4 00:00 發表
之前不是另一文章已吵過一次?  我看過之前的文章, 只有一個感想, 大家你有你講, 我有我講... 其他人講到口水乾都是錯...

何不去教育政策個專題去講? ...

dad1234

親疏有別係好正常

thomasha

Let's see how she reacts to my invitation to have an open mind to read through all the posts and the information provided.  If she still shows the tendency of wanting approval of her opinions rather than an open-minded discussion, I don't really see the point of spending any more time on providing information and ideas to her.  

BTW, I saw "Sunday file" tonight as you recommended.  Very informative and quite true.

原帖由 DaddyX 於 10-10-4 00:21 發表
Pls stay and continue to contribute, for 2 reasons

(1) If the information provided would reduce her hatred to the system due to initial misunderstanding, this will reduce her anger - which is a good  ...

thomasha

Yes, just like this topic is 強烈要求教會學校查証領洗紙來源, meaning that we are suggesting ways of rectifying a current flaw in the implementation of the allocation system.  When the system has rectifiable flaws and is not rotten to the innermost part, should the government abolish the system altogether or change it fundamentally, or should they focus on how to rectify the flaws?

原帖由 hophopbunny 於 10-10-4 00:27 發表


Agree. pointless to participate in this "non discussion" when  some obviously just want to use this forum to complain and blame in a non-constructive manner

I think the current system is quite well ...