del del del

4eyesDad

When a leading private primary school displays little sense of propriety and sensitivity, people are concerned.

Can we rely on the school to produce good leaders who can tell the difference between right and wrong? Or is the school just a place for training exam machines?

Lawsonmoon has a point in denouncing the practice of “address vetting” during interviews at DGJS.

Do DGJS parents know about the practice? Of course they do. Do they feel it is unfair? Yes, some do. But some don’t. Those who don’t may reason that “address vetting” is only a small part of the whole selection process, something like a 1% weighting (according to an anonymous contributor) and is too small to make a fuss about it. How does he or she know it is 1% instead of a much higher weighting?

Some even refuse to believe DGJS is that stupid. They think “address vetting” is no more than “address verification”, a routine check on the accuracy of the information (in this case, address) on the application form. They argue that a correct address is important. Otherwise DGJS may send letters to the wrong address. Clearly this argument cannot be valid because DGJS asks applicants to supply several self-addressed and stamped envelopes for correspondence purposes.

Another contributor says “address vetting” is a redundant procedure and suggests DGJS is too “old fashion and rigid” to drop that redundant procedure.

I agree that “address vetting” is redundant. It’s up to DGJS to justify why it continues with a redundant procedure. That’s why I am cautiously optimistic that DGJS will drop it.

By the way, a big event in education happened last week. A student from UCLA posted on YouTube a video entitled “Asian in the library“ and she made some  inappropriate racial comments, UCLA immediately made its objection on YouTube. That’s America. Based on this DGJS saga, it seems Hong Kong has a long way to go.

hitbadguy

Hi MyFriends,
It is not quite right. The school has received address COPY with application form. So, checking the ORIGINAL is not environmental issue.

Hi Lawsonmoon,
See I am helping you! Why escape? I know you will send other identify to response because the logic behind this thread has problem. I simply states facts and your proposition. Then you dare not to response.

You believe that accepting student is based on address. Then you mentioned that DGJS have changed the practice two years ago and let some officials to add some magic in the 1st interview.

So, in this year, your daughter can pass the 1st interview due to the magic, is it correct?


Your proposition that address vetting is the only reason to check applicant's address may be fine. Unfortunately, you mentioned that Mrs. Dai lost power to the board so that they can add magic in the selection process. You pointed out that your girl was accepted in the 1st round but failed in the 2nd round. You provided a very good example to attack yourself.

I wanted to double clarify the facts stated above unsuccessfully. Perhaps some facts are not true. What are wrong?
- address vetting is the only reason?
- successful candidate of 1st interview is totally due to the address?
- or your girl was qualified in the 1st interview? If the latter one is not true, I know why you are so angry! I am not saying that it is the reason. Thus, I need you to clarify.

原帖由 MyFriends 於 11-3-18 22:40 發表
You use the ORIGINAL to make a COPY of it. It wastes time, a sheet of A4 paper and the ink to make the copy because the school does not require you to bring the COPY. It is really not environmentally  ...

hitbadguy

The difficulties here are that:-
1.) 楼主 only selectively answer questions.
2.) 楼主 only wants to hear what he likes.
3.) 楼主 is very concern of the identity of others. He plays well of the identity game. However, 楼主's identity was created the same date of this thread. 楼主 only participates in 4 threads. Posts in 2 of them are exactly the same. The argument of 楼主 in the 3rd thread is the same as in this one. So, I guess creation of lawsonmoon serves only one purpose.
4.) 楼主 swings too much. What is the true proposition? Especially 楼主 modified his first post nearly 4 months after creation of this thread makes the previous discussion contributed by others in vain.

[ 本帖最後由 hitbadguy 於 11-3-21 13:14 編輯 ]

MyFriends

Sorry for my ignorance but let me clarify my position a little bit further. I guess it is a question of making 2500 copies or 5000 copies by assuming that there were 2500 applicants. Bringing in the ORIGINAL one should still reduce the number of unnecessary copies by, say 2500+ copies or 5 packs of A4 paper. This is what I meant by ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY. One is too much!

Also, please bear in mind that some applicants might move in-between interviews without informing the school. By checking the original one twice will definitely eliminate this uncertainty. If you have already submitted a copy of residence, what is the point of bringing in another same photocopy to verify. The school demanding an original one does logically make sense to me.

原帖由 hitbadguy 於 11-3-21 12:14 發表
Hi MyFriends,
It is not quite right. The school has received address COPY with application form. So, checking the ORIGINAL is not environmental issue.

Hi Lawsonmoon,
See I am helping you! Why escape? ...

MyFriends

楼主 did value the 'need-blind' policy in an early thread. I was surprised to see the discrimination by 楼主 against the new joiners. Don't you think there are double standards existing in the discussions ....

  sigh .......

原帖由 hitbadguy 於 11-3-21 12:37 發表
The difficulties here are that:-
1.) 楼主 only selectively answer questions.
2.) 楼主 only wants to hear what he likes.
3.) 楼主 is very concern of the identity of others. He plays well of the identi ...

hitbadguy

Well, I always don't trust the so called "need-blind" policy. It is the game of the rich. Especially in HK, a school (not university) called herself "need-blind" when they are asking school fee of HKD200,000+ per year.

Some people have been enjoying privilege for a long time. They just don't want to admit it but create a term to make themselves more comfortably. They have priviledge to send their kids to these "need-blind" school. For the rest, they have to be in the very top to be granted the remission.

Those have been enjoying privilege can always ask people to shut their mouths. Thanks for the invention of forum discussion. No matter you are rich or not, your human right are the same. It is really "need-blind".

原帖由 MyFriends 於 11-3-21 13:32 發表
楼主 did value the 'need-blind' policy in an early thread. I was surprised to see the discrimination by 楼主 against the new joiners. Don't you think there are double standards existing in the discuss ...

MyFriends

Hitbadguy, I think you are the lecturer of the University Philosophy 101 "Introduction of Logic" as Mr Law pointed out in the earlier discussion in this thread. The reason I think you are is because of the way of your consistent and logical presentation.

  

原帖由 lawsonmoon 於 10-11-25 18:33 發表
u r the one who understand University Philosophy 101 "Introduction of Logic".
Good!

hitbadguy

It is the only way to make people not swinging! Please see PM.

原帖由 MyFriends 於 11-3-21 14:48 發表
Hitbadguy, I think you are the lecturer of the University Philosophy 101 "Introduction of Logic" as Mr Law pointed out in the earlier discussion in this thread. The reason I think you are is because o ...

MyFriends

Thanks for your sharing. I can see why you are so uneasy when someone like Mr. Law moving around his proposition, trying to fool people based on his elegant arguments, just forcing his thinkings into others' mindset, acting like a 'King' and 'Slave' relationship as he boosted himself of a king at the beginning of this thread.

He said that the existence of king was rightly because of the existence of slaves. He treated the new joiners as 'slaves'. Please try to go back to the beginning of this thread to see the exact of his wordings.

原帖由 hitbadguy 於 11-3-21 15:39 發表
It is the only way to make people not swinging! Please see PM.

MyFriends

Here you are!

原帖由 lawsonmoon 於 10-11-27 11:28 發表
係呀, 講左唔考慮。
點解呢個post突然多咗好多 "新國民" ，這些 "新國民" 又傾向"奴"性比較重。
呢個世界有皇帝係因為有奴才。

hitbadguy

Calm down! Otherwise, you will become one of them.

We are trying to discuss logically and reasonably. I am waiting for lawsonmoon to answer his own question.

原帖由 MyFriends 於 11-3-21 16:54 發表
Here you are!

CC5

Hi lawsonmoon,


What is magic you pointed out earlier regarding DG's first interview? Can you share with us more about it? I guess a lot of parents will be interested to know. I also heard something about it a while ago but still haven't got any clues.

原帖由 lawsonmoon 於 11-3-17 18:14 發表
Yes, they just changed it to 2 interviews these 2 years.
We will not know their selection criteria, but the fact is that Mrs. Dai will not be able to interview every single candidate, she can only mee ...

MyFriends

Here is just a kindly warning to those who are planning to apply to DGJS for 2011/12 admission. The views expressed here by lawsonmon are based on his own adjustment, not reflecting any real findings. A lot of people have already felt being insulted or misled. This happened as early as the third day after the thread had been posted.

lawsonmon seemed to have given up his chance to defence his positions/arguments, meaning that somebody might have lied to the forum!

<quote> 引用: 原帖由 k.kung 於 10-11-28 18:00 發表
難道誤導和侮辱別人都無錯?

comment from others: support.  it is ok to stand firm on one's viewpoint but insulting everyone else who does not agree with him is class-less.

[ 本帖最後由 MyFriends 於 11-3-22 07:47 編輯 ]

lawsonmoon

del del del

原帖由 CC5 於 11-3-21 11:30 PM 發表
Hi lawsonmoon,


What is magic you pointed out earlier regarding DG's first interview? Can you share with us more about it? I guess a lot of parents will be interested to know. I also heard something  ...

lawsonmoon

del del del

原帖由 Go-to-school 於 11-3-18 11:36 PM 發表
*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

lawsonmoon

del del del

原帖由 MyFriends 於 11-3-22 07:44 AM 發表
Here is just a kindly warning to those who are planning to apply to DGJS for 2011/12 admission. The views expressed here by lawsonmon are based on his own adjustment, not reflecting any real findings. ...

CC5

I see. So, you don't know what is the mechanism for the first round as the magic could mean the address. Due to the magic, your daughter was selected for a 2nd interview that could imply that you live in a luxurious area since corporate apartments are normally located at Mid Levels. As to the second round of interview, Mrs Dai purely based on the girls' performance at interview to pick students. The key to success is the kids' ability rather than the address as there are still some 500+ applicants who should all live in good place. Can I deduce that your application fell through due to your daughter's ability, not because of the address matter? Is that true?

原帖由 lawsonmoon 於 11-3-22 20:06 發表
"Magic" has no special meaning, it just means some mechanism you and I will not know. The only fact is that the principal is not longer interviewing every applicant, she can only interview the shortli ...

[ 本帖最後由 CC5 於 11-3-22 22:20 編輯 ]

munce

A friend of mine who is living in repulse bay area - her daughter got admitted. Her daughter is Dec 05 girl, meaning very very small girl. She not even started to learn piano or other musical instruments.

On the contrary, a colleague of mine who is living in northern part of New Territories - her daughter failed in the 2nd round. She got loads of awards, including distinction in inter-school speech and music festivals. Also she is big girl.

So what does this imply? You may say the small girl performed better than the big girl during the interview, but I met both of them during Chinese New Year, and what I can tell you is that the big girl is much smarter, outgoing and mature.

4eyesDad

To CC5: You suggest Lawsonmoon's daughter's application was successful at the first interview (due to his nice address) but failed at the second interview due to her performance.
If this were the case, it is absolutely scandalous that an applicant's address determines her success at the first interview.
Address vetting is discriminatory. It is definitely redundant.
The call for the abolition of address vetting at interviews by private schools like DGJS remains as strong as ever.
Recently, the Director of the London School of Economics resigned because of some sort of scandals related to Libya.
People in Hong Kong have different interpretation of the meaning of "propriety" and "shame".