關於集團
集團品牌
presslogic-logo
廣告查詢
工作機會
用戶登入
用戶名稱:
密      碼:
搜索
教育王國 討論區 教育講場 公費留學(左丁山)
樓主: elbar
go

公費留學(左丁山) [複製鏈接]


446
21#
發表於 14-2-1 17:41 |只看該作者
提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽


446
22#
發表於 14-2-1 17:50 |只看該作者
提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽

Rank: 14Rank: 14Rank: 14Rank: 14


120402
23#
發表於 14-2-1 18:52 |只看該作者

引用:Quote:shadeslayer+發表於+14-2-1+15:31+中

原帖由 Amom1972 於 14-02-01 發表
補充一點,這計劃不是扶貧,但若不考慮尖子家庭經濟能力而發放獎學金,那便是浪費公帑,反而若能幫助有經濟 ...
大原則是小事,沒有爭拗。

如何界定經濟困難?是否要回香港工作,才是討論重點。

要入息審查嗎?審查又話歧視,不審查跟其他獎學金沒有太大分別,加大其他獎學金數目就好簡單,不過,不能達成區長的真正目的。



點評

HKUBB  真搞笑,要審查入息點算是歧視,難道審查綜援申請者就是歧視窮人!  發表於 14-2-1 20:13
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Rank: 11Rank: 11Rank: 11Rank: 11


32340
24#
發表於 14-2-1 18:52 |只看該作者

引用:Quote:shadeslayer+發表於+14-2-1+10:05+教

原帖由 HKUBB 於 14-02-01 發表
偏頗又如何,他/她也有權說偏頗的觀點,也沒有逼其他人認同。
偏頗也可以說,我是說他的話偏頗,別人不同意,不回應,是正常。他卻三番四次說甚麼別人不接納各種意見,正正是自相矛盾。為何他不接納別人不同意他的意見呢?



點評

HKUBB  一樣米養百樣人嘛  發表於 14-2-1 18:56
The more bizzare a thing is, the less mysterious it proves to be.

Rank: 11Rank: 11Rank: 11Rank: 11


32340
25#
發表於 14-2-1 18:58 |只看該作者

引用:Quote:原帖由+Amom1972+於+14-02-01+發表補

原帖由 ANChan59 於 14-02-01 發表
大原則是小事,沒有爭拗。

如何界定經濟困難?是否要回香港工作,才是討論重點。
不要回港工作,我接受不了。



The more bizzare a thing is, the less mysterious it proves to be.


1030
26#
發表於 14-2-1 19:46 |只看該作者
提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽

Rank: 11Rank: 11Rank: 11Rank: 11


32340
27#
發表於 14-2-1 19:53 |只看該作者
Amom1972 發表於 14-2-1 19:46
如何定經濟困難是技術细則,定有辨法定出較可接受的標準。

我不贊成一定要回港工作,那會窒礙那些有潛質 ...
常言教育不是支出,是投資。用公帑資助不回港工作的尖子,是甚樣的投資?
The more bizzare a thing is, the less mysterious it proves to be.

Rank: 14Rank: 14Rank: 14Rank: 14


120402
28#
發表於 14-2-1 20:15 |只看該作者
回覆 HKUBB 的帖子

HKUBB  真搞笑,要審查入息點算是歧視,難道審查綜援申請者就是歧視窮人!  發表於 31 秒前

*******


遲d 咪知囉!

點評

HKUBB  即使有啲無知嘅人有這樣想法,你無需同他們一般見識  發表於 14-2-1 20:47
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.


1030
29#
發表於 14-2-1 20:31 |只看該作者
提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽

Rank: 14Rank: 14Rank: 14Rank: 14


120402
30#
發表於 14-2-1 20:43 |只看該作者
Higher Education : a good long-term investment from OECD

Higher education: a good long-term investment?
by J.D. LaRock
Senior Analyst, Innovation and Measuring Progress Division, Directorate for Education


As any student can attest, pursuing a higher education requires an investment in time, effort – and in a number of OECD countries, significant financial resources.  But the economic costs of higher education go beyond tuition fees.  Because people with higher education tend to have higher earnings, they’re likely to pay more in income taxes and social welfare contributions.  There’s also the “opportunity cost” of foregone earnings when people enter university instead of the labour market.

Given these long-term economic costs, do the long-term economic benefits of having a higher education make it worthwhile?  As the latest issue of the OECD’s brief series Education Indicators in Focus details, analyses based on the most recent year of available data – 2007 for most countries – suggest that the return on investment is very good.

For example, the long-term economic advantage of having a tertiary degree instead of an upper secondary degree, minus the associated costs, is over USD 175 000 for a man and just over USD 110 000 for a woman, on average across OECD countries. The payoff is particularly strong for men in Italy, Korea, Portugal and the United States, where obtaining a higher education degree generates a long-term benefit of more than  USD 300 000 for the average man, compared to a man with an upper secondary education only.

Meanwhile, the advantage for women is strongest in Ireland, Korea, Portugal, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, where having a tertiary education yields an average long-term benefit of USD 150 000 or more, compared to a woman with an upper secondary education.

As the chart above shows, OECD analyses also find that the long-term payoff on the amount of taxpayer funds used to support people in higher education generates a strong return.  Taxpayer costs include funds used to lower the direct costs of higher education to individuals, as well as support for grant and loan programs.  They also include indirect costs, such as foregone tax revenues and social contributions to the government while people are in university.

On average, OECD countries directly invest more than USD 30 000 in public sector funds to support an individual pursuing higher education.  However, they’ll recoup this investment – and then some – through greater tax revenues from these higher-educated people, as well as savings from the lower level of social transfers these people typically receive.

On average, OECD countries will receive a net return of USD 91 000 on the public costs to support a man in tertiary education – more than three times the amount of the public investment. In Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Slovenia and the United States, this return is especially high, topping USD 150 000.  The net return on the public costs to support a woman in higher education is somewhat lower – USD 55 000, on average – but are still positive in almost every OECD country.

Of course, the fallout from the global economic crisis will likely change this cost-benefit equation – but whether it will make it better or worse overall is unclear. For example, the higher unemployment rates spurred by the crisis are likely to have reduced the opportunity cost of foregoing work in order to attend university.  However, they also may have reduced some of the benefits of having a higher education, because unemployment rates rose among tertiary-educated people during the crisis.

Likewise, the continued global expansion of higher education could have different effects.  As the supply of highly-educated individuals grows, the relative economic benefits of having a tertiary education may go down over time.  However, if economies continue to become more knowledge-based – increasing the demand for highly-educated people even more – the economic benefits of higher education could continue to expand.

For more information
On the OECD’s education indicators, visit:
Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators www.oecd.org/edu/eag2011
On the OECD’s Indicators of Education Systems (INES) programme, visit:
INES Programme overview brochure
See also: IMHE General Conference 2012 "Attaining and Sustaining Mass Higher Education", Paris, 17-19 September 2012

點評

annie40  well clarification.  發表於 14-2-2 09:12
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Rank: 5Rank: 5


4490
31#
發表於 14-2-1 22:03 |只看該作者

引用:Quote:shadeslayer+發表於+14-2-1+19:53+常

原帖由 Amom1972 於 14-02-01 發表
我從不認為教育支出是投資,教育就是教育,給予百個有經濟困難的尖子一個難得的學習經驗,是给予值得讚賞 ...




Rank: 11Rank: 11Rank: 11Rank: 11


32340
32#
發表於 14-2-2 01:08 |只看該作者
本帖最後由 shadeslayer 於 14-2-2 01:10 編輯
Amom1972 發表於 14-2-1 20:31
我從不認為教育支出是投資,教育就是教育,給予百個有經濟困難的尖子一個難得的學習經驗,是给予值得讚賞 ...

設立助學金的原意為何?聽政府説,是培養多點有國際視野之尖子貢獻香港。不要求留港發展,如何貢獻香港?

普及大學教育不同,本地大學係社會共識,是必要的。公費外國讀名大學當然好,但供一個外國讀,夠兩至三個本地資助學位。正如公費外國讀名中學也很好,每年歐美遊學兩次也很好,又例如政府派本 MacBook Air 比每位學生也很好,公費每位學生跟大師學辯論/鋼琴/小提琴也不錯。這些很好的東西在我來說是奢侈品。香港社會富裕,一些奢侈的教育開支可以討論用公帑,沒問題,例如公費外國讀名大學,但回報要定得嚴𧫴一點。

The more bizzare a thing is, the less mysterious it proves to be.

Rank: 5Rank: 5


4490
33#
發表於 14-2-2 09:17 |只看該作者

引用:+本帖最後由+shadeslayer+於+14-2-2+01:10+

原帖由 shadeslayer 於 14-02-02 發表
本帖最後由 shadeslayer 於 14-2-2 01:10 編輯
!以閣下意見,香港就没有高錕,除立之及大量學者!雖然他們是自資到海外,但他們都是在海外工作多年才回港!在外國工作,就等如對香港没有貢獻嗎????香港没有資源,只有人才!中國及鄰國都大力投資在人才訓練,香港卻原地踏步!現在還有門户之見!



Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9


23819
34#
發表於 14-2-2 09:26 |只看該作者
對我而言,教育孩子包括教育品德,學會求生知識,回報社會(算是回本,可稱為投資)減輕為父母的有形和無形負債。(養兒一百歲,長憂九十九,是永遠的負債表)。

社會是大我,教育目的的涵蓋必然更廣泛和現實了。












Rank: 14Rank: 14Rank: 14Rank: 14


120402
35#
發表於 14-2-2 09:37 |只看該作者
當吹水不少學者怎樣怎樣,當中不少都在香港受大學教育,例如徐立之,學士,碩士都是中文大學,博士才到海外進修。再者,是自費還是獎學金都未搞清楚!

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.


1030
36#
發表於 14-2-2 10:19 |只看該作者
提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽

Rank: 14Rank: 14Rank: 14Rank: 14


120402
37#
發表於 14-2-2 10:52 |只看該作者
回覆 Amom1972 的帖子

我提供OECD的分析文章是作參考,因為我聽到不少教育投資論,未聽過教育教育論,所以上網查看,教育教育論找不到,其他教育投資論太學術性,這份最淺白,所以貼上作背境資料小作更深入討論。
因為用iPad 未貼上相關圖表,最好上網看看。

他的計算指標你可以作參考,回報及投資成本包括那些項目,希望看到你的論點。

點評

Amom1972  Thanks for your information  發表於 14-2-2 15:02
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Rank: 11Rank: 11Rank: 11Rank: 11


32340
38#
發表於 14-2-2 11:27 |只看該作者

引用:Quote:shadeslayer+發表於+14-2-2+01:08+設

原帖由 Amom1972 於 14-02-02 發表
先澄清一點,我從沒有贊同或認同政府現時所説設立奬助學金之理念即目的(培養多點有國際視野之尖子貢獻香 ...
我想,討論圍繞政府提出的宗旨,及細節的意見與批評,比較有意思。

公費留學,公費遊學,等等無論錢財或性質很相似,如何無限上綱呢?



點評

HKUBB  Amom咪係就政府方案提出修定及改善嘅建議,有乜問題呀!  發表於 14-2-3 10:38
Amom1972  我提出新的觀點討論也絕對是有意思,更可反影給政府作出改善  發表於 14-2-2 15:08
Amom1972  留學與遊學性質其實相距很遠,不應混為一談。然而,若沒有資源限制,我不反對資助遊學  發表於 14-2-2 15:05
The more bizzare a thing is, the less mysterious it proves to be.


1030
39#
發表於 14-2-2 15:00 |只看該作者
提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽

Rank: 14Rank: 14Rank: 14Rank: 14


120402
40#
發表於 14-2-2 15:40 |只看該作者
我自己打算供孩子海外升學,事實上亦有學位在手,但小朋友想在香港讀學士,所以留在香港讀大學。若果他願意,可以往海外讀研究院,如果是尖子,我深信他會有海外獎助學金。

至於國際視野,大部份本地大學有國際交換生計劃 (International Exchange Program),部份有國際實習生計劃(Global Internship Program),如果是真正尖子(不是傳媒吹捧那些!),一定有很多機會,而且只計 GPA 成績及面試表現,不計算家庭背境。

我不知現在討論的家長,有多少對本港大學及獎助學金有實際經驗,抑或想當然!如果有經驗者,會知道我實話實說!如果單講理想主義,我投降了!

點評

HKUBB  單說實話有乜用,你啲實話根本就回應不到或反駁不到網友提出的新觀點,你根本就不能掌握對方論據的精髓,思維辯證高下立見!  發表於 14-2-3 10:48
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
‹ 上一主題|下一主題
返回列表
發新帖