用戶登入
用戶名稱:
密      碼:
搜索
教育王國 討論區 小一選校 選讀拔萃女小學,還是讀瑪利諾修院小學
樓主: mamafans
go

選讀拔萃女小學,還是讀瑪利諾修院小學

Rank: 3Rank: 3


149
發表於 11-2-19 23:40 |顯示全部帖子
2間都是好學校, 任選其一都不会错!

Rank: 4


592
發表於 11-2-19 23:48 |顯示全部帖子
如果是我,我也會選 MCS。因為我比較喜歡 MCS。我自己有些朋友是畢業於 MCS, SH, SGCC, DGS, BPS, YW。。。如果選女生的氣質我會選 MCS 多過 DGS。英文方面,MCS 的英文怎算差呢?
當然,我是用我自己的朋友來比較,現在可能是有所改變。

Rank: 5Rank: 5


2094
發表於 11-2-20 00:13 |顯示全部帖子
Sorry, can't  agree with you in comparing DGJS to those world class institutes. Most of these world class institutes such as Harvard, are practising Need-blind admission policy in selecting students. However, DGJS asks the P1 applicants to provide original AND copy of bills for residential proof. They check them twice during 1st & 2nd interviews. What is the rationale behind, a rational personal will know, need not to explain. The chance of you meeting those Bright but less better-off new comers is very slim.
原帖由 LesMis99 於 11-2-14 02:27 PM 發表


It is really an honor for less better-off students to be able to study in elite schools like DGS, etc.  It is very common for top universities like Harvard, MIT, Cambridge, Oxford, etc to subsidy br ...


937
發表於 11-2-20 12:33 |顯示全部帖子
提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽

Rank: 5Rank: 5


2814
發表於 11-2-20 20:21 |顯示全部帖子
Lawsonmoon: You have a point. I really don't like the fact that DGJS asks the P1 applicants to provide original AND copy of bills for residential proof. They check them twice during 1st & 2nd interviews. I find it very uncomfortable.

Rank: 5Rank: 5


2094
發表於 11-2-20 22:46 |顯示全部帖子
Thank you.


其實2nd in 之後我已經post過佢地作為教會學校做呢個動作係好肉酸和不對,但有啲家長可以話學校可能怕你填錯地址和方便安排校車^.^
有啲甚至話我報假地址被他們發現、所以.......;HK有啲家長真係好得人驚,我個point係教會學校做呢個動作都不對。小女其實直升CAIS的、報DGJS係俾佢玩吓啫、中文都未講得掂。
原帖由 4eyesDad 於 11-2-20 08:21 PM 發表
Lawsonmoon: You have a point. I really don't like the fact that DGJS asks the P1 applicants to provide original AND copy of bills for residential proof. They check them twice during 1st & 2nd intervie ...

Rank: 3Rank: 3


307
發表於 11-2-21 10:07 |顯示全部帖子
羅生門,

如果
DGJS interview真係俾阿女玩吓, 又何須動氣呢?
Post 番條link俾其它人睇下
究竟邊D家長得人驚

http://forum.edu-kingdom.com/viewthread.php?tid=2257031&extra=&page=1



原帖由 lawsonmoon 於 11-2-20 22:46 發表
Thank you.


其實2nd in 之後我已經post過佢地作為教會學校做呢個動作係好肉酸和不對,但有啲家長可以話學校可能怕你填錯地址和方便安排校車^.^
有啲甚至話我報假地址被他們發現、所以.......;HK有啲家長真係好得人 ...

Rank: 3Rank: 3


152
發表於 11-2-21 14:32 |顯示全部帖子
原帖由 lawsonmoon 於 11-2-20 00:13 發表
Sorry, can't  agree with you in comparing DGJS to those world class institutes. Most of these world class institutes such as Harvard, are practising Need-blind admission policy in selecting students.  ...


Let's put some suggestions to the selection committee of DGJS and ask them to use email address instead of the physical address. Would that change the outcome of the interview?? I really doubt it! Sometimes, why don't we accept the fact that we are just being bad luck and fail through a selection process without any reasons at all given that the chance is only 4.6% to be accepted by DGJS this year???


83
發表於 11-2-21 15:04 |顯示全部帖子
提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽

Rank: 3Rank: 3


152
發表於 11-2-21 15:27 |顯示全部帖子
原帖由 angrybirds 於 11-2-21 15:04 發表

People with some background can still use email addresses like [email protected]


I meant an email address for each kid, not the parents.

1. [email protected]
2. kidName_[email protected]
.
.
.
3000. kidName_birthCertificate[email protected]

From my own experience, I think the selection process of DGJS is very fair as there is not a single chance that parents can speak on half of the children. It is the competition among the girls involved. I guess the girls and only they will tell you how fair the process is all about! The winner takes it all! That's life, isn't it?

[ 本帖最後由 LesMis99 於 11-2-21 16:23 編輯 ]

Rank: 3Rank: 3


152
發表於 11-2-21 15:48 |顯示全部帖子
lawsonmoon,

But I am sure the chance should be higher than that of being accepted by DGIS this year ....

原帖由 lawsonmoon 於 11-2-20 00:13 發表
... The chance of you meeting those Bright but less better-off new comers is very slim....

Rank: 5Rank: 5


2814
發表於 11-2-21 16:26 |顯示全部帖子
LesMis99: Should the suggestion to DGJS selection committee be "Drop the scrutiny of address at the interview stage"?

Rank: 3Rank: 3


152
發表於 11-2-21 16:35 |顯示全部帖子
I totally disagree with any claims that 'address' is the key factor to be considered for the selection into DGJS. This looks totally absurd to me. It appears to be more convincing to use 'luck' to explain one being failed than using the address argument. Excuse my reasoning.

If I were Mrs Dai, I would be foolish enough to use address to pick girls into my own school. Such a riduculous thing I have really never heard of it! Remember that HK is a free society and people do allow to move around all over the places .....

原帖由 4eyesDad 於 11-2-21 16:26 發表
LesMis99: Should the suggestion to DGJS selection committee be "Drop the scrutiny of address at the interview stage"?

[ 本帖最後由 LesMis99 於 11-2-21 16:38 編輯 ]

Rank: 5Rank: 5


2814
發表於 11-2-21 17:32 |顯示全部帖子
Many people agree that using "applicant's address" as one of factors, whatever the weight attached to it, in admission selection or screening is not right. That's why some people find it uncomfortable and that's why some private schools do not subscribe to the practice of scrutiny of applicant's address at all.
The recommendation to abandon the dubious practice of "addresss scrutiny" is sound.

Rank: 5Rank: 5


2094
發表於 11-2-21 23:52 |顯示全部帖子
The problem is that many parents in HK feel that's not a problem. They think you and I have a problem!
Just like asking somebody's monthly income is very rude in western world, but many people in HK do not think it's a problem.

In fact, they don't have the concept of Need-blind policy.
原帖由 4eyesDad 於 11-2-21 05:32 PM 發表
Many people agree that using "applicant's address" as one of factors, whatever the weight attached to it, in admission selection or screening is not right. That's why some people find it uncomfortable ...

Rank: 5Rank: 5


2094
發表於 11-2-22 00:05 |顯示全部帖子
I also presume DGJS not using applicants' address as selection criteria, that's why I was saying even asking for somebody to provide copy and then original address proof is inappropriate and absurd. What would you think if Harvard practicing this procedure? Probably get sue because they are practising Need-blind policy!
Ask yourself honestly, if you are applying a job, the employer asks you to provide copy and then original of your address proof. What would you think?????? The employer should ask for the proof of your education and working history, but not your address!

But I think if DGJS admits they are not practising Need-blind policy, that it's okay to getting address proof as they are private school, they can do that. It's just a moral issue as they are christian school.
原帖由 LesMis99 於 11-2-21 04:35 PM 發表
I totally disagree with any claims that 'address' is the key factor to be considered for the selection into DGJS. This looks totally absurd to me. It appears to be more convincing to use 'luck' to exp ...

Rank: 2


46
發表於 11-2-22 00:08 |顯示全部帖子
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。

Rank: 5Rank: 5


2094
發表於 11-2-22 00:18 |顯示全部帖子
Just want to say school really not necesary to collect personal information which is not going to be used. Not necessary to check applicants' original bills (presuming applicants lie??? If school not consider it, what is the motive for applicants to lie).

原帖由 LesMis99 於 11-2-21 04:35 PM 發表
I totally disagree with any claims that 'address' is the key factor to be considered for the selection into DGJS. This looks totally absurd to me. It appears to be more convincing to use 'luck' to exp ...

Rank: 3Rank: 3


152
發表於 11-2-22 07:38 |顯示全部帖子
Mamafans,

We were facing a similar situation like you. Our decision process was very simple as we believed that the more competitive a school is, the more one could be trained to face up to the ever changing and complicated world, let alone other minor things such as A+B+C .... So what else you are thinking as it is a very straightforward decision indeed!

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。

Rank: 3Rank: 3


152
發表於 11-2-22 08:39 |顯示全部帖子
Under the Discretionary Places Allocation for P1 of HK Education Bureau, parents apply to one school of their choice. When you hand in the application form to the school, one needs to bring in the "ORIGINAL" as a proof of address as well. As we all know, address is not taken into account in the selection process at all (0% weighting). But why don't they bother to change the protocol? I think this is quite a common practice among schools, including DGJS, as they've just inherited the procedure directly from Education Bureau. No policy risk involved! Who should bother thinking to change it ????


原帖由 lawsonmoon 於 11-2-22 00:18 發表
Just want to say school really not necesary to collect personal information which is not going to be used. Not necessary to check applicants' original bills (presuming applicants lie??? If school not  ...