選讀拔萃女小學,還是讀瑪利諾修院小學

4eyesDad

原帖由 LesMis99 於 11-2-25 09:52 發表
To me, 'education' is really or simply being used as a way to select the 'best' and then distribute their talents to better develop a society. It is a more commonly accepted tool or a faily valued way ...

So how does P1 admission selection by a top private school based (partly) on student's residential address help in bringing about your vision of "education" of selecting the best?
Should selecting the best - if that is possible at the age of 5 - imply there should be no ulterior facts such as student's address?
Should private schools therefore drop the practice of "address vetting" at interviews?

LesMis99

I am just day dreaming then ..... Ha !!! Ha !!! Ha !!! Excuse me! Really there is no a relationship at all as you kindly pointed out.

I really don't know how to comment on HK education system as it is in such a BIG MESS, like the housing policy!

The future education system in HK will look like our current housing bubble! There is an analogy existing between the two:
*** cut land supply since 2000-xx leading to the current housing bubble
*** cutting classes in primary+secondary school could lead to more expensive education in the future.

Whose policy is this?

Another dream!

原帖由 4eyesDad 於 11-2-25 10:52 發表

So how does P1 admission selection by a top private school based (partly) on student's residential address help in bringing about your vision of "education" of selecting the best?
Should selecting t ...

DGJS

其實我在看你會不會回答 4eyesdad 的問題。你一直堅持DG不是用good address去收生, 你又怎可能用他的假设回答他的問題。

原帖由 LesMis99 於 11-2-25 11:32 發表
I am just day dreaming then ..... Ha !!! Ha !!! Ha !!! Excuse me! Really there is no a relationship at all as you kindly pointed out.

I really don't know how to comment on HK education system as it  ...

LesMis99

I agree that I can't prove the hypothesis wrong but until it is right, my view remains the same.

If DG conducts a final check right before the school year begins, I will change my mind that address is really 'something' more than just an address.

Assuming that there are 3000 applicants and 2000 of them failed the address scrutiny process. The remaining 1000 candidates still need to compete for say 100 out of 140 seats available. The chance is only 10%. Given that we are not certain whether address is really that important or not, we should focus more on the overall child development as one still needs to beat the other 900 candidates in order to secure a place. This is the most difficult process and parents should be focusing more than only placing too much an emphasis on address issues. Having said that if the kids can really impress the interviewers by whatever reasons, I think the chance of being selected will be much higher than living in a big house. One don't need to live in a big apartment in order to bring up a kid and let them enjoy a high quality education. On the contrary, one should really save more resources for the better education of their kids and spend less on the housing matter if choice were given.

原帖由 DGJS 於 11-2-25 13:41 發表
其實我在看你會不會回答 4eyesdad 的問題。你一直堅持DG不是用good address去收生, 你又怎可能用他的假设回答他的問題。

CC5

100% agreed with you, mamafans.

原帖由 mamafans 於 11-2-24 09:00 發表
我想IB就一定好的嗎？不在IB制度下學習就在思維方面一定比較差嗎？我未深入研究過，致於會否出外讀書，言之尚早。暫時只考慮選小學的問題。

家長接受提交地址証明，是因為明白我們考的是私校，我比較更不喜歡那些強迫學生驗毒的 ...

4eyesDad

P1 admission selection is a big and hot topic.
Many selection criteria with varying degree of importance are involved, some known and some unknown.
When one particular criterion is used as part of the consideration and, if known to the world, everybody objects to it, it will be dropped.
But some smart private schools do not openly admit they are using the objectionable criterion. So some parents do not believe these private schools are stupid enough to use an objectionable criterion secretly. Many of them insist there is no proof or it is just a hypothesis subject to proof.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know the difference between reality and a hypothesis.
The reality is that some private primary schools are keenly checking applicant's address at interview.
And also it is a reality in HK that some parents don't think it is a problem.
As far as the school is concerned, DGJS is no doubt a good school, irrespective of how it selects its P1 students.
One only hopes that it will one day see the wisdom of dropping an objectionable, unnecessary and time-wasting selection practice of vetting applicant's address at interviews.
My wife told me that "foot binding" took years to disappear!
That, sadly, is also a reality.

LesMis99

me too!

原帖由 CC5 於 11-2-25 15:28 發表
100% agreed with you, mamafans.

lawsonmoon

今期親子王介紹李寶樁, 公開講明收生用Need-Blind Policy, 光明正大；有a lot of scholarship, 只要叻就可以讀。再看看收生方法，D 讀雞精班的考試機器肯定考唔到。Oversea visit 唔係去London, New york. 李寶樁既收生和教肓理念個人覺得係直資和私政的典範。

原帖由 4eyesDad 於 11-2-25 05:42 PM 發表
P1 admission selection is a big and hot topic.
Many selection criteria with varying degree of importance are involved, some known and some unknown.
When one particular criterion is used as part of the ...

yukico

原帖由 mamafans 於 11-2-22 00:08 發表
真係多謝各位的意見，唔知有無女兒讀女拔的家長呢? 我真是很想知真實的學習情況，而我事實上係比較傾心女拔。

mamafans,

我沒有女兒就讀MCS, 所以無從比較兩校的優劣。

DGJS可以100%直升DGS, 這是毋庸置疑的, 單單為了這一點, 一個懶媽媽(如我), 不想花時間、精力去替女兒準備升中面試, 就會選擇DGJS.

註: 當然, 我家的實情是, 當年最終的選校權並不在我手上, 而是小囡她自己! 所以妳可以徵詢一下令千金的意見, 別看她們小小人仔, 其實他們已很有主見, 知道自己的喜好。要知道, 在一家由她自己揀選, 自己喜歡的學校裡上學, 有可能會收到事半功倍之效呢。

Yukico

smallpanda

我是一名路過的家長，是一名女拔舊生。或許是個人的偏見，如果我是問問題的那位家長，我會選DGJS。讀DGJS的話，讀得開心讀得好，可以繼續讀下去升DGS。就算讀得不開心想轉校，由於底子打得比較好，轉去其他學校升中學都沒有什麼問題，而且DGJS的學生大把學校肯收。我覺得，你現在選DGJS，將來的選擇比較多。

以我個人經驗來說，很多人對DGS有誤解，覺得學校對學生施壓很大，而且很多有錢同學看不起人。其實不是這樣的。那些是外人看DGS學生的感覺而已。因為DGS學生的bonding很強，對學校感情很深，聚在一起的時候時時都說學校的事，或在各式各樣比賽中與其他學校爭長短，所以其他學校的學生會覺得DGS的女生不可一世。但其實，同學間的感情很好，而且DGS的學生一般(不敢說所有)都很有教養。

我自己認識很多Maryknoll畢業的朋友，整體來說，我覺得DGS的畢業生比較獨立和有上進心。

以前，MCS的英文程度是十分高的。但我同意今時今日與DGS相去甚遠。我現在有一個下屬是MCS畢業，然後升讀一間頗出名的美國大學，但她的英文程度就...

如果我有女兒(我只有一個仔)，我定會選DGJS。

P.S. Just hope that Maryknollers do not find the above offensive.  I have no intention to downgrade Maryknoll girls.  In fact I do believe most of the students of both schools are equally smart.  While DGS girls are more of high achievers, those from Maryknoll are generally more low-profile.  It's just that I prefer DGS personally and share this feeling with others.

overview

佢地唔一定成績叻先收, 但成績差就一定唔會收.

原帖由 lawsonmoon 於 11-3-11 20:46 發表
今期親子王介紹李寶樁, 公開講明收生用Need-Blind Policy, 光明正大；有a lot of scholarship, 只要叻就可以讀。再看看收生方法，D 讀雞精班的考試機器肯定考唔到。Oversea visit 唔係去London, New york. 李寶樁既收生 ...

lawsonmoon

個人覺得maryknoll學生整體比較有收養。
有人批評DGJS收生程序、可以有人分身扮幾個假ID圍插批評者；給超級版主發現Ban了。
http://forum.edu-kingdom.com/viewthread.php?tid=2257031&page=11#pid33614024

這些會是什麼人呢？為求目的是否可不計較手段呢?
有時Bonding太強變為一個宗教似的、是很危險的事情呢!

原帖由 smallpanda 於 11-4-27 06:00 PM 發表
我是一名路過的家長，是一名女拔舊生。或許是個人的偏見，如果我是問問題的那位家長，我會選DGJS。讀DGJS的話，讀得開心讀得好，可以繼續讀下去升DGS。就算讀得不開心想轉校，由於底子打得比較好，轉去其他學校升中學都沒有什麼問 ...

vaga

冇論邊一編文章, 討論任何事情, 只要提及到DGS, "某人"都例必用負面既言詞批評DGS, 睇怕佢都真係好憎恨DGS, 或該校對佢傷害好深...

4eyesDad

It's not about DGS. It's about DGJS.
Judging from previous discussions in BK, we see many people agree that DGJS should not actively vet  applicant's residential address at interview stage for P1 admissions.
As a private school whose P1 admissions are not based on catchment areas, DGJS is either wasting its time in vetting applicant's address or, worst still, displaying a discriminatory manner of the worst kind in admission selection.
People expect great schools like DGJS to act impeccably.
When it doesn't do so, people are greatly disappointed.
Disappointed people do have the right to make their voices known.
Now this topic has been widely discussed, I am cautiously optimistic that, in the forthcoming academic year,  DGJS will drop it's redundant practice of vetting applicant's residential adress at interviews.

lawsonmoon

I think "Education Kingdom" is popular enough to let DGJS aware of this. If they are not dropping the policy of vetting applicant's residential adress at interview stage in the coming year, which means they are using this information. Let's see what happen in the coming year.

原帖由 4eyesDad 於 11-4-28 02:07 PM 發表
It's not about DGS. It's about DGJS.
Judging from previous discussions in BK, we see many people agree that DGJS should not actively vet  applicant's residential address at interview stage for P1 admi ...

lauerica

原帖由 vaga 於 11-4-28 11:56 發表
冇論邊一編文章, 討論任何事情, 只要提及到DGS, "某人"都例必用負面既言詞批評DGS, 睇怕佢都真係好憎恨DGS, 或該校對佢傷害好深...

莫非吃不到的葡萄是.............

4eyesDad

This is diversion. Intention is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the matter!

hitbadguy

Lawsonmoon 的言論大可能構成誹謗。4eyedads 的言論更明顯不過。由於我不能確定可能住在舂坎角的4eyedads 就是 lawsonmoon 的化身，因此我在另一個thread 問了他一些問題。

BK在處理一些可能是 誹謗的討論時一向很小心。原因BK是討論平台的提供者。其實遇到一般投訴，平台供應者大多可用看不到及已在用戶註冊時提出警告，從而提出抗辯。 在把lawsonmoon的thread 關閉前，BK已很清楚 lawsonmoon / 4eyedads 的言論。但這已是第二次有人作出相同的言論。BK是否支持?

原帖由 lawsonmoon 於 11-4-27 19:52 發表
個人覺得maryknoll學生整體比較有收養。
有人批評DGJS收生程序、可以有人分身扮幾個假ID圍插批評者；給超級版主發現Ban了。
http://forum.edu-kingdom.com/viewthread.php?tid=2257031&page=11#pid33614024

這些會是 ...