不然又被人西

若果完全取消中學派位﹐各小學生全憑一己實力考入心儀的名校﹐家長就不用本末倒置到要搬屋求學位了。有什麼理由要保留支持派位制呢﹖

關於小狼君提到畀人“西＂呢回事，請參閱:
http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=106621&group_id=176

鄙人當時火遮眼，走埋落場強出頭，唔止做0左 “西＂人，仲做埋拉登0忝...真係茂利~
:P

Just wanta give another side of the argument. I went to one of the elite school in HK, and I have no regret studied there. (I don't really like the term famous school, famous can imply negatively famous). I was assigned to a band 1 bottom, band 2 top school in the F.1 lottery. My mom somehow got me into one of the toppest boys school in HK. If I didn't studied there, I will definitely be a worse person as I can imagine. Just take a loook at my friends in primary school, I can spot big difference for those got into elite schools and those went to normal schools. If I live in HK, I will defintely send my kid to my mother school by all means.

A Band 1 school is NOT an elite school by default. An elite school is always something more, whether be the tradition, the school culture or the alumni connections.

Hi Frostig,

I bet we didn't went to the same school :)

Actually none of my good friends (a group of 10) from my secondary school days become a "centralist". All of us, except one, moved overseas. I have cousins studying in international schools in HK. They seems pretty decent compare to traditional elite schools. However, international schools are just the the new elite schools in HK, they are still elite school.

If you lives in HK, where can you send you kid to school? Either the new elite schools or the old elite schools, you gota pick one. I bet you won't want you kid go to any band 2,3 schools in HK. Teacher in those school can't even get the class in order, forget about actually do some teaching.

Elite school prepare the students way better for university overseas. If money permits, every parents in HK should send their kid to universities in US, UK, CA, etc. We all know the value of having your degree from an decent university overseas.

As a private tutor (sorry, but I HAVE TO survive!), I have seen too many students ruined or at least wasted by the so-called elite schools (or however you call it!!!).

The major reason why their parents had to hire us was that the children HADN'T LEARNT ANYTHING from class in school. The teachers basically don't need to teach, as the students are so intelligent, they and their parents care about their academic results SO MUCH and most of the SO RICH that the students can handle everything at home themselves. Our jobs (yes, we were kind of 'as a team' since each of us teachers taught several subjects only) were to TEACH EVERYTHING.

I don't care however you belittle me. I can tell you that, for sure, you didn't go to the secondary school I went to.

Anyway, those ugly facts are just facts, you don't need to know, and no one needs to know. Those rich parents (living in Kowloon Tong, for sure) knew these truths very well, but just couldn't bare to 'give up' the 'special status' and benefits brought to their children by relating to those names of such 'famous schools'.

P.S. By being a 'Centralist', you don't need to work in Central. Please refer to what 'Centralism' or ' Central Values' mean, thanks!
P.P.S. How poor that you only have ten close friends from your sec. school. It has helped me prove that students in such schools aren't good. If more good classmates and schoolmates you had, I bet you would have had more close friends from there. I feel so sorry for you, although I couldn't make many close friends from my own sec. school also. (Less than half of the close friends I have made during only the MA course which has lasted for a bit more than half a year only.)

What is Centralism? Can someone please enlighten me?

P.S. Actually I think able to keep 10 good friends over 15 years, still keep in touch with them and see each other every year or two is quite good already. Provided that we scratte all over the world.

Looking at my other friends around me, their group of highschool friends ain't very big either. Just wondering, what's the optimal number of high school friends one should have after 10-15 years?

被人西o個位，就算人o地無出聲我都無得唔認喇
一係你做拉登我做扎卡維喇

小弟今年十八，未有咁快做人老豆o既
我諗，如果小朋友識反抗話唔想學o野，斷估係天才喇o卦

至於明校方面，我真係識得人少，唔敢妄下定論
但係我估計，精英主義o個種優越感，再加上愛自己學校，變做排他自大都唔出奇
至於早前睇到有人講某大學o既 Hall好黑暗，關名校事都唔出奇，有無人可以查證o下？
聲明：只係估計，唔好當真

p.s.我就唔會話見到名校生就印象打拆扣o既，個個人都唔同

你好! 西唔西人, 拉唔拉登, 由佢咯...嘈過就算.
^-^

睇過閣下好耐之前一段講好自由下0既某名校0既0野...冇估錯0既話, 0個間可能係在下0既母校...嘿~

其實 "名校" 呢樣0野, 有辣有唔辣啦. 講真, 其實 "名校" 特別過人0既, 在我睇係或者有0的比較特別:例如話有0的玩得好喪, 有0的就好 academic, 有0的就靜得好緊要 (女校?), 有0的就串到飛起, 眼高於頂. 之但係好多時都走唔出呢幾種 behavioural traits...當一間學校有咁上下歷史, 收0既唔係有錢仔女就係勁人, 其實都計得數出會係咩款. 學校 keep 得好, 0的人唔會出到去招招積積0既, 都仲話 ok; 唔好0既話, 0的人就真係得 "乞人憎" 三個字.

就以我以前讀0個度為例, 我讀0個個年代0的人相信係呢間學校咁多年來最平民化0既一批, 好多人都同我一樣, 係普通公屋人, 0的人串極都唔係好離譜, 一般而言除0左鍾意玩之外都幾平實; 但近年唔知係咪多0左富戶, 響 xanga 0個0的地方八開, 耐唔耐就見到有人因為0的無無謂謂面子0野爭認叻要威而嘈交, 感覺上真係好似招搖0左.

當然, 名校係有好處 - 單係 connections 就已經唔同 (不過我自己係孤僻怪, 用唔著), 此外一0的正面0既 characteristics, 好似活躍, 主動, 再加上學校0既歷史同聲譽, 好多時都會形成0左一種 esprit de corps, 0的人會好有歸屬感, 有少少似人0地認同鄉, 認軍中同袍咁. 當然, 呢種團體認同有時亦會變成傲慢或排他性...就好似我母校年年響灣仔同 "出乎其類" 0個間互插咁, 正係例子. 好與唔好, 我都唔敢講.

不過始終香港地先認錢, 再睇朵, 後認人, 大人如是, 細路如是. 就算唔係靠讀名校飛黃騰達, 單係 "一日名校, 終身撻朵" (我自己都好 pk, 不時咁做), 出去行走江湖四圍認校友認同年, 都已經夠晒受用. 換句話講, 讀名校唔係市儈就假0既...係差在個學生自己有冇響呢個前提底下讀壞品0者. 以我0的舊同學計, 又唔係好多真係咁衰, 至於我呢0的就壞0左一半啦 (因為冇發達, 發0左可能衰格到十足十), 但宜家呢輩就...難講咯. 之但係亦唔賴得晒學校 - 呢0的0野, 學生本人有責, 家長亦有責. 真係會讀名校讀到衰格0既, 籠統講句, 各方齊打五十大板啦...

No one ask you to like "elite" school, and for the few who have studied in elite schools and 'hated' it, I would say "tough!", as you have already benefited from being a graduated of an elite school, whether you like it or not.

I would say the EMB is at fault here, they shouldn't change policy right before the school selection period.

Now, I would expect those elited school graduates to say why it would not matter.

Really?

I would also speculate that many of these parents who really want their children to go to the elite schools were not elite schools gradates themselves. They have already 'suffered' the unfair system of being sent to an average school, with an average teacher, not much resources and either work extra hard to go to university, or didn't go to university until they could pay for really expensive overseas university courses in Hong Kong.

They know that there are "advantage" to go to elite schools, and that is why they tried so hard.

For them to be insulted by those who have already benefited from this system is not only unfair, and really uncall for.

The path of a student life started from an elite schools, having a better chance to go to an elite secondary school and then enter university, got a degree or two, before entering the workforce competing for the top 30% jobs do not sound bad at all. Especially when you compare to those who go to a band 2-3 school, try again to go to band 1 school when go to secondary school, if not successful, try to enter university when their own teachers would not encourage you to keep your hopes up. It is not hard to see which path is tougher.

I am on the side of parents who try to give the best possible chance for their children.

And I would try not to look down on those "elite" graduates, who after getting all the benefit from being an elite graduate, try to insult others who try to get the same benefits they have enjoyed.

Who is ridiculous here?

Oh please! One who have benefited from being graduated from elite schools and go on to get university education (plus overseas higher education experience) comparing that 'experienc' with women who have suffered violence of rape is just plain insulting to all rape survivors.

How dare you to compare your advantaged life with those who have suffered violence of rape?

YOu are only a victim of your own personal drama (and I would not try to judge it as stupid, ridiculous), has nothing to compare to women who have suffered real violence of rape.

Of course, talking to an elite graduate who is too wrapped up to her personal drama is a waste of my time.

My advise... I think you should come to the realization on how pathetic you sound. Now go cry me a river on how "horrible" is it for you to be benefited from a system that favored elite school graduate like yourself.

注定一生柒, 藝術冇樣精!

這很funny。 又是'名'的問題。多少人誤進名校也是'名氣'所累......

知道的了﹐你那家是出了名'寸'的有錢男校嘛﹐懂了。所以﹐我沒說錯﹐講到尾你們一幫'以讀名校(還要是寸爆名校)為榮'的好同學就是認同'中環價值'﹐不管你喜歡叫它甚麼名字。

反正﹐我就是說中了。'名'﹐真的那麼重要嗎﹖

不幸言中﹐不代表我高興。這﹐不只是我的痛苦﹐更是香港的悲哀。

世界上總有些人感到自己的出身、信仰、價值觀被否定，當然會維護。但急於維護時，許多荒謬的邏輯，如「既然無法反抗強姦﹐不如享受被強姦過程」一類，就會出動。

同時，不論別人如何指出有問題，總會把問題轉化，轉化到在自我感覺上是覺得沒問題的。

「大角嘴天主教小學校長戴劍輝替特意買油尖旺區樓爭入名校的家長不值。他指有家長嘆稱，現在恍如買了『大陸樓』般不斷貶值，『買錯樓，好似返到家中，突然沒有了4呎』，不知道5年班學生的家長，明年會否又再減少名校選擇，最後『連客廳、廁所都不見』。」

「家長林先生部署10年，斥資700萬元購入九龍區單位，捱過負資產，今年有望送獨子入名校。為表誠意，林先生打算自行分配學位階段及統一派位階段均替兒子報讀皇仁書院，惜『埋門一腳』統一派位卻無緣報讀，如今爭入名校如意算盤打不響，徒嘆奈何。」

唔知買樓送子女入名校的家長, 將買豪宅嘅錢捐一二百萬俾辦學團體, 可唔可以買一個學位呢?

荒謬的邏輯 usually are from those who are too self-centered to think of anyone else but himself or herself.

And I think this poster is exactly this type of persons.

No one denied anyone personal experience, but personal experience is not universal, and is not really useful in any rational discussion.

The point really is, the parents who wished their children to go to a "Band 1 elite school" now would not be able to do so because of a sudden change of policy of the EMB, announced a week before handing in the school selection form.

It really didn't matter (personally) to this irrational poster because the children affected are not her children. If she has children of her own and she "refused" to let her children to go to elite schools, that is her personal choice, affected by her personal experience, and have nothing to do with anyone else.

It is really uncall for to have insulted parents who think it is best to send their children to elite schools, so much so that they would move to the school zone just to have them eligible to enter these schools.

It is just logical to see that the "path" of the elite schools students are comparatively smoother than those who enter ordinary schools. The chance of entering a good secondary schools, facilities in the schools, chance of entering university, are all better for elite school students.

The so-called-suffering for being poor in a rich boy/girl school is understanable. Poor students are being discriminated anyway, and much more so in elite schools where there are higher concentration of rich boys/girls.

But who said there would be all peachy if poor (economically speaking) go to non elite schools? If it is in the wrong district, they may have higher concentration of bad influence simply because of the diverse background of parents (Sorry to say that, but even the EMB realize that many students in certain districts are affected by domestic violence in the home).

Just saying elite schools sucks, or insulting parents who want to send their children to elite schools is just plain ranting. Without really thinking about the advantage the parents could think of by sending their children to elite schools is just unfair.

But this expected from an insulting self-centered persons. Just look at her statement saying students graduated from elite schools as

//好人...有限﹗ //

is just a simple demonstration of her own prejudice and hatred toward anyone who do with elite schools.

BTW, //只有個人追求﹐往上爬﹐自我成就...... 想一想﹐如果真的接受了這一套﹐出來是甚麼人﹖//

The answer should be Hong Kongers, as most Hong Kong people are motivated to climb higher in the social and economic status.

The system of Hong Kong Central allocation system for all children who have reached the age to enter Primary one is divided into 18 districts.

These districts are quite fix and the bureaucratic EMB would not likely to change it.

Now, most of the elite schools are concentrated on the established "rich" districts. Other posters could explain why this is the case by illustrating the historical economic development of Hong Kong.

The original idea of this "school zoning" policy is to reduce the time a young child need to travel to school.

Maybe that would make it easier to understand why parents would have to move to fit into the current school zone system.

There are about 10% of discretionally placement for the school principal to use to accept some of the better students who are not from the same school zone.

That is the basic system of Primary One allocation system.

Like someone who have rudely suggested, it is not really something that we like, and we should change it.

Of course. But that is not done by irrational name calling to the parents or the elite schools or elite school graduates.

More could be done to lobby the chance of the system by at least have the basic understanding on how current system works.

Unfairness of the system also include, discrimination against children with no religious background.

Because of the historical setting up of schools in Hong Kong. A lot of elite schools are church afflicated. So, if parents belong to a particular church and have written letters from the particular chuurch leaders, it is much easier to go into many of the elite schools when compare to students with no religious background.

Asked me again why there are so many middle class Christians in Hong Kong.

Why is all this important?

Resources. Schools resources could varies from having few old computers to have computer room with the latest technology.

One of the elite school I visited have LCD projector and computer in every classroom. Plus DV equipment for school media project like inner school tv.

Let think about it before any more insult to parents who want the "best" for their children.

Please...

Anyone who really want to change the system, there is a serious lack in NGO monitoring of the existing school system in Hong Kong. Anyone want to start one or a least participate in "constructive" discussing (and not just ranting and insults) would be good in righting a wrong.

Name calling, emotional ranting and insults would not be entertained (at least not by me.)

BTW, I know that this article probably aim at the parents who have "wasted" their time in trying to send their children to elite schools. I just could not agree that parents are to blame when they are not the one who created the existing system.

More on that later.

其實 Frostig 君提到所讀學校0既學生人口組成, 我覺得幾得意: 因為對比返我自己0既經驗0黎講, 睇返名校學生人口組成響呢十幾二十年來0既變化, 或者可以睇到社會0既心態/行為趨勢, 甚至係未來0既社會構成.

我自己 K1 至 P1 讀0個間, 其實係九龍塘0既學校, 計格局比之後0個間小學仲富貴. 出奇0既係, 0的教師幾有愛心同耐性, 而0的同學不論有錢冇錢 (雖然所謂冇錢0既都唔會真係太窮)響行為方面亦好妥當 (除0左見過一個同學, 逢係有人同佢講0野佢就鬧人'死人頭'), 學校氣氛好和諧, 教學上亦唔係鐵腕辣操學生0個隻. 但如果計學生人口, 基本上個 range 都幾 broad, 由少數0既臨屋戶到有錢人都有. 但好出奇咁, 去到之後0個間大教堂正宗名校, 印象中就變成以中產為主, 父母多0既係專業人士, 教師, 或公務員. 而呢一堆人0既仔女, 就通常係最招積0既一群. 我之前提到最見高拜見低踩0既, 最多係呢堆. 反而有0的勁有錢0既, 日常同我呢0的街坊友冇咩分別, 人篤魚蛋佢篤魚蛋, 人坐小巴佢坐小巴, 唔係個個都大鼻晒0野. 呢一點, 我諗同宜家0的名小學好唔同: 單係我呢間小學母校, 宜家0的學生都富貴過以前 - 印象中我讀0個陣, 學校門口接放學0的私家車係多, 但都唔夠宜家0既多 (同埋貴).

至於中學, 就仲明顯. 以喇叭為例, 鄙人當年在校0個陣, 相信係間學校校風最平實0既年代. 唔係話0的人冇錢, 而係普通 lower middle class, 甚至係公屋街坊都大有人在. 開學 apply 車船書簿津貼同學費減免0既, 大概都有 1/6 至 1/5. 綜援戶就好少, 不過每年都有見到. 響門口接放學0既車亦唔係太多, 就算係某0的有錢又有0的招積0既, 最多都只係把口衰少少, 囂少少, 日常都未至話眼高於頂唔理人, 波馬狗吃喝玩樂一樣係跟大圍, 唔見得話有0的乜奢侈浮誇. 老實講, 響喇叭度畀氣我受0既, 反而係少數小學已經同我有牙齒印0既仇家, 其他新相識0既就算話不投機, 都冇咩唔妥. 之但係到0左宜家呢輩, 因為多0左一大棚 "一擲千萬買畢山" 0既家長送0的細路入直屬0既小喇叭, 令到每年一半以上新生來自小喇叭0既大喇叭日益富貴, 響網上面 xanga 睇下0的大喇叭 blogring, 見下0的人講下日常生活, 就知同以前我讀0個陣有幾唔同: 試過見到有人寫話, "weekend 上遊艇玩, 同埋楊 x 成 uncle (某名商人個細佬) 出海..." 真係睇到眼都突埋.

再睇返幾十年以前0既名校, 我會咁講: 學生人口0既經濟程度, 由以前到宜家應該係響 initially start at zero 後, 迅速呈現 reverse bell curve 狀態. 最早期 (19 世紀至 20 世紀戰前)香港有書讀0既, 未必一定係好有錢, 尤其係教會辦學, 好多帶有慈善性質, 0個陣新開0既學校有可能係 serve 貧苦大眾子弟多0的. 但當時正規教育唔普及, 0個0的有受正規教育0既人幾易上位, 成為準/正式專業人士 (以前讀書, 多數都係旨在變 "三師"), 因而0的學校好快就形成0左一班有經濟實力0既校友, 而出面街外有錢0既一群亦會認為令仔女有學識有專業資格, 順便 reach out 去建立專業界別人脈, 幫助家族生意係一件好事, 令到呢0的歷史悠久0既學校迅速上位變成一線名校, 有一大棚有 socio-economic clout 0既人做擁躉, 令學生人口極富貴.

但之後由於貧苦大眾亦對讀書脫貧有0左憧憬, 而呢0的名校又處於擴張期, 要透過快速擴展學生人數以建立規模同聲譽, 因而逐漸開門畀街外0既五湖四海英雄好漢, 有本事0既就可以讀, 學校亦唔 mind 出埋 material support. 跳水皇后個老公阿松就係人辦, 而呢個亦係所謂 "獅子山下" 神話0既開始. 換個角度講, 呢種情形同唐太宗講0個句 "天下英雄入吾彀中" 差唔多: 開一條路畀最具危險性0既社會下層, 等佢0地有得 aspire "朝為田舍郎, 暮登天子堂", 從而逐步收編, 拆彈. 呢段時間, 名校學生0既社經平均值逐漸下降, 但由於讀書始終係會 take away 家庭生產力而且花錢, 而之前建立0既校友/名人/富商支持者依然存在, 所以平均計名校學生都係唔普通得去邊 - "獅子山下" 之所以為 "神話", 亦係因為咁樣. 呢段時間, 大約係上世紀 60-70 年代.

之後到 80-90 年代. 政府強制教育, 派位制度逐漸成型, 香港人處於新制度0既適應期, 未完全學識點去打敗制度, 所以多數都仲係 play by the book, 跟返 basically meritocratic (考學能測驗, 跟成績派位) 0既 system 去升學. 而且由於經濟普遍好景, "上位" 0既壓力冇咁大, 因而各種不擇手段用錢用催谷搏入名校0既風氣雖然存在, 但仲未去到最瘋狂0既程度. 因此響呢段時間, 名校學生0既社經平均值大幅下降: 讀名校0既, 好多都只係成績好, 而未必有錢. 始終, 政府0既派位制度, 大幅沖淡學校收生0既自主權, 因而送0左唔少街坊街里入傳統名校.

但到0左 90 年代中開始, 名校學生又漸趨富貴: 派位同校網制度用耐0左, 家長已經學識點樣走位, 搬區, 催谷, 玩手段 (eg. 入教會, 捐錢, etc.), 因此富裕人家0既優勢再次明顯番, 而回歸後局面急轉直下, 各方對教育質素0既不滿加劇, 而對學生-勞動力質素0既要求又越0黎越高, 教育登時變0左一個 high-stake game, 參與0既人都出盡九牛二虎之力, 務求要成為勝利者. 因此就有0左一個人學九萬幾樣0野0既 "千手觀音", 花千幾萬買畢山一號入碧華0既 "孟母三遷" 出現. 名校學生普遍又再富貴, 理所當然.

如果趨勢唔變, "名校" 0既情形大概會係由兩漢孝廉/秀才, 變做魏晉南北朝九品中正咁..."上品無寒門, 下品無士族". 寒門要上位, 就唯有讀新興0既新市鎮好學校, 用尚算係 meritocratic 0既考試制度上位, 讀個好 degree, 壓返低名校學生0既朵. 好在, 新興好學校上位呢個發展趨勢似乎幾 solid, 各位街坊街里要脫貧, 暫時都仲算係有條路. 當然, 要響職場出人頭地做 elite, 又係另一回事. 呢樣下次再講.
^-^

Again, it is not logical to blame parents who want to give their children a better chance in life by starting them off in elite schools.

Why blamed the parents? They are not the one who set up the system?

Why blamed the schools for having higher tuition?

Again, why some of the school fees are so high when compare to the university tuition?

Because that is how the pie is being share. The HK government have spent a lot of money in footing the bills for university.

The budget for education other than university, mostly go to the fully government funded schools.

The question is not why some of the government sponsored schools are so expensive, the question is why the fully government funded schools are not in the elite schools list?

If the government didn't foot the bills for the adding of resources for some of the government sponsored elite schools, the schools have to find the funding somewhere. And school fees are one of the major sources of funding to relovate the schools, to buy computer equipments or to hire extra teachers for students.

Thinking it in a surperfical level is good for ranting, but that is not much of a discussion.

The Government didn't force it to change! It WAS government-subsidised before, the whole time......

It was the school's decision to do so. If they charge that high so to stop good students frompoor families from getting in, then, who else should be blamed, if not the school?

Just too funny.

Oh, no!!!

I typed so many words but then the server problem clears them all......

Ok, keep it short then. I have said sth like that......
Temporal aspect, of course, should be considered, but the funamental differences between different types of schools should also be noticed. Historically, the sec. schools with linked primary schools accommodate mainly rich students, while there are some 'purer', 'fairer' elite schools (characterised with the lacking of linked p. sch.) which are not so 'elite' in fact, in terms of wealth of families.

However, as the Government wants to talk about 'Dragon' (linking the p. sch. to sec. sch.), it might worsen the situation, I can't tell.

Hi Frostig,

Where is the new thread?

Sorry to side tracked the discussion, but I think I figured out the source of difference between our secondary school experience. Since you hated your school so much, I guess you probably won't mind I trash talk SPC. In our circle, we don't consider SPC as a true elite school. Yes, its academic really shines, but that's all. It doesn't provide an all rounded education. There are many old boys in this thread, I am sure they understand the "讀得又玩得" spirit of our school. At least from my school days, I don't see any bad traits of elite schools you had mentioned in my school.

Just like XOX had brought up an interesting observation, the really rich kid in the school acts pretty ok, it is the wanna-be who has attitude problem. Maybe the same analogy can apply to elite schools. The few true elite schools (less than 6-7 in HK) are pretty ok, only the next tier wanna-be elite schools (probably 20 or so) shows those bad traits. The problem is the general public can't tell the difference between real elite schools and those wanna-be elite schools.

Promised to talk about this topic in 人民開咪, so I will leave things as they are and to discuss the problems in details during the programme. As I can phone-in, everybody else are welcomed!

I shouldn't waste my time and effort here as I totally understand that it is useless. I am very busy, in fact.

There are some schools which are only well-known for its long history, but not regarded as in the 'circle'. (The students studying there may not know it.) Anyway, the pride is not only found on a certain group of students, so...... Sorry, I start not to know what I am saying now, as I am really dizzy. Just hope I don't need to face those over-proud nasty people......

一、

個人經驗不一定universal，但也不一定不是universal。加上有人講佢自己經驗，唔代表佢冇睇過其他人。

唔明呢點，我相信inmedia大部份文都唔駛睇。

好，講universal丫嘛。我舉個例，如果放到漫畫效果更佳。《終身學習：教育改革的46種觀念》裏有幅圖，愛恩斯坦在黑皮上罰抄「我以後不敢再亂諗嘢」，漫畫下的文字是：「如果愛恩斯坦在香港學校裏就讀……」

如果因為有人舉出個人經驗做例，就咬定佢Self-centered、唔universal、not to think of anyone else but himself or herself，呢一種先至係荒謬的邏輯。

二、

家長、教師唔係創建個制度，They are not the one who set up the system，所以就唔應該怪責？

一個制度，除左那個所謂的創建者，還有許多人維護。如果啲人唔維護，個制度可以散、可以變。個制度明明係衰都冇機會改變，維護它的人，原來冇責任？

哦，小圈子選特首個制度，都唔係曾憲梓、鄔維庸創建嘅，They are not the one who set up the system，你點解要責怪佢地？Why blamed them？Why blamed the 選委會？Why blamed the 民建聯？

看！誰是荒謬的邏輯！！

三、

討論的朋友，對，說了不少自身經驗，但當中有許多很實在的問題。似乎有猛叫唔好批評的人，不斷轉化這些問題，有些問題甚至是無視，(企圖) 由得佢在討論論自動消失。

四、

我話明我英文差，成段討論又水蛇春咁長。我冇法睇得晒。但係邊個認為佢地以為好的什麼制度什麼現實，可以凌駕於在教育討論中「學生」(或「前學生」) 這個角度，這種抱持「強姦學生主義」的人，我請佢收皮。我沒說學生角度一定對，但若認為什麼什麼可以凌駕於此者，與奸商認為他們的角度可凌駕前線工人有何異？所以我請佢收皮！！THAT'S ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!

(P.S.如果要跟我討論，請用中文。我英文差兼要趕PROJECT同應付考試，冇時間同大家慢慢磨O的英文)

1. Frostig 君提到唔同類別學校有唔同睇法, 呢點明白. 不過之前懶, 冇提埋...嘿~

其實 "名校" 可以有唔同分法: 和尚寺 or 尼姑庵, 定係 co-ed, 係一種分法; 官校 or 教會學校, 又係一種分法. 計返學校級數, 頂級0既少林, 武當, 峨嵋, 次級0既崑崙, 崆峒, 青城, 定係再次0的0既乜鬼海沙派巨鯨幫, 長江三十六連環塢, 又係一種分法.

Frostig 君頭先講到用級數分呢樣, 係會見到個幾得意0既情形: 有 "下院" 分枝 (聯繫/直屬小學是也) 0既 "名門大派", 同0的唔上唔落0既崑崙崆峒, 以及0個0的單靠派位收生鞏固實力0既海沙派巨鯨幫, behavioural trait 係會有唔同. 我兩個妹都讀過算係海沙巨鯨呢個 level 0既學校, 經驗都係好似 Frostig 君講0既咁上下: 只顧操成績, 課外活動冇乜, 管教學生 "懶" 係嚴咁, 力求將自己個 image 谷高一兩個 notch. 呢類半天吊0既 "elite-wannabes", 帶出0既問題又同0的 "名門大派" 唔同. 佢0地有時睇得自己好高 (未必係學生, 可能只係校方), 但0的 "名門大派" 又可能會睇0起佢0地 (記得"倚天" 裡面滅絕師太聽見鄱陽幫有份跟去打明教0個度嘛? 情形有少少似). 呢種各有各串, 新富求認同, 世家大戶鼻高0既情況, 好難話有0的咩好鬧, 不過係幾好笑.

2. 關於 "勝婆" 呢...assume 係麥當勞道間 co-ed 啦. 以我個人多年觀察所得 (他人評論 & 自己親身識得0既勝婆人) 0黎睇, 佢0地絕對稱得上係一線 "名門大派", 不過個 characteristic 有0的特別. 由於係男女校, 體育方面未必 accomodate 到咁多 "勁人", 因此響體育呢瓣佢0地係比較弱. 但體育唔勁就勁第瓣: 音樂同文藝創作都好勁, 尤其係音樂. 所以響 "傳統名校多才多藝" 呢點, 佢0地唔係冇表現, 只係側埋一邊.

3. 張 x x 呢間 "學界修身堂" 比較特別...又唔係教會, 又唔係官校, 以辦學團體計算係 "新發財" 0既 category; 不過計出名, 佢0地又出名0左都幾耐, 話完全係新發財又好似唔多妥. 我有大學同學響0個度出0黎, 評價大約同 Frostig 君講0既差不多 - 學校太 focused on 成績, 有時甚至去到對0個0的成績唔夠好, AL 升唔到0既同學欠缺少少人情味.

當然, 上述都只係道聽途說 or 一家之言, 準確性有幾高就真係唔敢講0勒.

但我跟你'調轉',打中文很慢。

(一) 有人太寸兼自視過高(but then somehow ignorant)﹐跟他講話一句講完'無癮'。完全不放人再眼內﹐如何有話可說﹖

(二) 某張XX中學(Why is it called '學界修身堂' by the way? Sounds VERY funny!)是當年我媽恐嚇我﹐說我不努力讀書就把它填到第一志願的﹐出了名有多久可想而知。(可是﹐它對我來說是'出名'沒人性。Sorry to say that.)(I have got an ex-tuition student studying there, now S.5. He is suffering a lot, and my friend, his current private tutor, is kind of suffering also......)

(三) 我也不知道何時講這題目﹐反正我也不是主持人﹐只是有興趣討論一下而已。ICQ或者phone-in都可以。有了比較確定的資料會告訴你(大家)。

(四) SPC 可以等於 St.Paul Convent, etc. 這就是為甚麼我會問SPC 指那一家學校。我的看法是﹐不清楚人家的叫法最好還是講全名好﹐不要自作聰明。好像﹐雖然我知道Marymount 叫MSS﹐我還是(在非MSS人面前)叫它Marymount﹐以免誤會。

(五) 我沒意思討論'名校'怎麼分類﹐只是想指出﹐通常有直屬小學的(因為小學部都是私立學校﹐在講以前﹐我自己的年代)(現在教改太多太快﹐追不及﹐可能已經不同了﹐不敢肯定)﹐學生比較有錢﹐態度也普遍來說比較怎樣。(大家心中有數﹐無意點得太明。)而且﹐這類學校還是會有'外來生'的﹐他們通常都是最難受(或者說比較難受)的一批。

(六) 如果說﹐'不講道德﹐不講群體﹐不講人性'﹐'只講自己﹐只顧個人﹐只談利益'﹐那竟然就是'香港人'的話......我首先(Sorry!)寧可不認自己是香港人﹐然後﹐還是要說一句公道說話﹐因為那是貶低﹐侮辱了香港人的。我要求道歉﹗
我不知道以教'這種人'出來為己任的學店﹐教育理想何在﹗﹗﹗

(七) (新加的)我常常說的一點﹐總有人有'本事'裝聾作啞'看不見'。好﹐我就再講﹗
Band 1 學校也好﹐英中也好﹐貴族學校也好﹐名校也好﹐國際學校也好......
沒有學校是神仙﹗
還是input & output 的問題﹐你給它一個麥兜﹐它沒法製造一個怪醫秦博士還你。就是這麼簡單。
我說了﹐不讀名校﹐還有別的Band 1 學校可讀﹐EMI 的 CMI 的都有﹐中間還是有好學校的。我自己看見的就不算少(相比壞名校的'多')。Band 2 的好學校還是存在的(唉﹐忘了還有Band 2 的EMI 學校呢﹗雖然我不知道EMI 為甚麼會被當成'一定是好東西'。CMI 的金文泰﹐培正, etc. 不都是有名的好學校嗎﹖)。
還有﹐其實每一區都有不同程度的學校﹐只有適合自己水平的才是對自己來說的好。當然﹐校風﹐老師的熱誠和教育理想﹐學校的教育模式﹐理念跟目標都是考慮的重點。不過﹐說到底﹐就是不要以為人家讀某學校得到好成積﹐你去讀都會一樣。天份﹐努力﹐運氣﹐'一個都不能少'......

好了﹐papers 要緊...... 請請﹗

Haha, I see. Thanks!

Noted - 唔該晒~~
^-^

昨晚主持人沒有討論的其中一個分類是'貴族名校'跟'平民名校'。這分歧在'一條龍'和'直資學校'出現後更趨明顯。
還有﹐昨天主要講的都是中學﹐沒有另闢時間講講'名'小學的不同分類。