No comments.
I mean, what can I say? *SIGH*

And, if 'teachers' should be against 'students', then how about 'parents'??? What a funny imaginary situation. If teachers aren't the ones who care about the students most, who are? (well, you can say that the parents are, but in terms of 'children', mind you, not 'students'.) No teachers want the students to behave badly or not to study well. It is SO 'funny'.

我唔知道如果用網上文章，是否必須在試卷內quote網址，會否有不quote網址的方法？還是可以在之後的東西才quote回？又或者為何不用不能即時翻查的印刷文章？

其實考評局用人哋的版權文章，係有問題。在作為考試的卷內，屬教學用途，不算什麼；但之後考評局把試題拿來賣錢，而錢則入自己袋，而不是會聯絡返網站上的作者，咁就有問題了！

考評局之前又高調講過，學校唔准印過往試題，學生必定要向考評局購買，而過往試題要加價！

Time, Asia Week, etc., and even SCMP some how use 'articles taken by HKEAA for English exam questions' as y big selling point when promoting to S.4, S.5 students.

The lack of protection in copyright is compensated by this kind of 'advertisement' made by HKEAA, I suppose. (Just in the point of view of those publishers.)

Of course, this is bad to copyright. What I mean is reasonable is 'not to tell the copyright owner (writer) in advance'.

It is simply a worry. What if you tell the writer, and accidentally (s)he lets somebody know that the article will appear in CE exam paper? That would be a big problem. So, for this reason, I guess not telling the people involved IN ADVANCE is appropriate, but should at leadt inform him or her afterwards and ask for the copyright.

Re. Copyright, I agree with Little Wolf.

I guess it is also a problem Little Wolf tried to point out.

Well, I believe that both parties have some responsibilities, but the biggest sufferers are really those 'honest' students. (They may not be more honest, but could be less clever, less rich, or more clever - in terms of academic results, so they didn't need to cheat at all, anyway......)

點解今次會突然highlight手機呢?
點解d媒體又會突然間講到考評局要提醒考生手機問題呢?
公開試裡面作弊的定義,
不是包括考試期間電話跟身,或電話響起嗎?
我考公開試時, 監考的會清楚提醒熄電話然後把電話放進袋中, 而袋要放在凳下
如果問題在電話的話, 任何科目的考試考生都可以thru去toilet然後以sms通答案
把問題歸咎於網站亦有問題.
幾年前都已有在網站錄文出卷, 為什麼幾年前又無問題呢?
要登網址的重點不在版權, 而係關乎proper citation
雖然今次事件我地清楚看見考評局係兩者不分

究竟今年的考試係唔係有監考員或者政府有關當局,唔記得叫人熄手機同埋手機離身呢?

考評局今年的錯, 一字記之曰懶
一懶唔修訂篇文先出題
二懶唔三令五申考試期間所有野要放凳底

我讀中七的，剛完成公開考試

監考員的確有要求考生將所有物品放在椅子之下，如果說考評局懶在這方面，是對考評局不公平的。肯定的是，就算監考員叫到，很多考生都不會照做，我就不為意地把手機放在褲袋，沒拿出來。
考評是很混賬，但這件事他們做錯的只是出題太「求其」，一字不改（至於版權就是另一層次的問題了...）。對於手機作弊，他們的確無能為力，除非不讓考生方便，但這樣做他們又要被口誅筆伐了。

一個不肖學生如我做paper就算quote(抄)得再過份
都唔會原文一字不缺咁抄落去啦
點都會modify一下
想不到出卷既老師比我更懶
好啦~
你懶照抄
都唔好一字不漏將條link抄埋上去嘛~~

好似話前一、兩年d卷都有印到個網址上去
依家搞到咁大都係因為手機上網愈黎愈普及
人地話"道高一尺 魔高一丈"
考評局道行未夠，跟唔上潮流
自然就賴野啦~

唔咪話d學生咁就可以理直氣壯地作弊
佢地出蠱惑抵俾人鬧
如果斷正就更抵死~
不過唔該考評局努力修行~
唔咪就真係“鑊鑊新鮮鑊鑊金”

考評局的生殺大權，恐怕他們也不想擁有吧。

簡單的例子，大學的考試還沒兩次公開考試來得嚴謹，有些還MC了事，但批評大學考試的聲音卻小得可憐，原因何在？

會考、高考的生殺大權，還不是考試把人定性了「清流」、「末流」，嚴重影響考生的前途？但這生殺大權，是考評局自己說了算？還是其他？看看找工作的網頁就一目了然。

有時覺得考試制度之所以千瘡百孔，是考試制度被濫用之故，這可不是考評能控制了。

真想問各位, 女仔被性侵犯皆因衣著性感暴露? 美國911事件發生是否等於美國抵死呢?

對錯當然重要, 因為此事已影響考評局的發展(電子評卷一事), 而眼見很多人的態度就是"兩邊都有錯, 不過被人搞既仲大罪", 咁既是非觀, 會否是我們所樂見呢?

當然, 這並非說考評局不必自我檢討, 做好d, 但不等如要踩多幾腳, 甚至令人感覺變相將出貓合理化......

根據東方日報報導, 張超雄指，是次作弊事件明顯是考評局出錯，如立法會再輕易答應其撥款要求，實在難以服眾，因此這次要有附加條件，要求考評局盡快調查事件，待局方完成令人滿意的報告後，才再討論應否撥款設立電子評卷中心，委員會最後通過有關「懲罰」，擱置考評局提出的撥款申請。

http://hk.news.yahoo.com/060508/10/1nn17.html

何來"事實上是有新考慮元素加入，導致原有的考慮不完整"? ，若是只是因為作弊事件作崇, 則我認為議員意氣用事並無不當, 因為議員早已對考評局的作風及能力有一定認識, 而立法會去年十一月亦曾討論有關計劃, 當時亦未見如此強烈的反應, 而是次發生這樣的疑雲, 是否等於考評局沒有足夠能力搞好電子評卷中心? 如果是, 為何當初又不反對? 反而如果是因為考評局忽然修改計劃或忽然有議員揭發計劃有重大疏漏, 則絕對可以擱置甚至反對撥款.

"考評局的壓力，並不是因為公眾的過度要求，而是考評局給予公眾過度的合理期望所致。"

唔明......講真我都係覺得公眾有很大期望, 考評局要回應, 而當然作弊刑事化固然不當, 但要完全滿足公眾期望既不可能, 不理會更糟

可以點做 有得考評局繼續無能?

教改....減少考試?

但最根本問題係香港社會的運作太需要以考核來支撐人力資源的分配, 即使有得考評局繼續無能, 亦只是降低公眾對考評局所辦考試的期望, 公眾到時候又會尋求另外的考核模式, 當然自由市場有另外的好處, 但公眾肯定不會破棄迷信, 除非搞大鑊飯(肯定不可能也不應該)又或者有另一條新路

反而神化考評局, 可能是無可奈何, 至少一個大部分機構公認的標準, 已經減低考生表達自己能力及企業選拔人才的交易費用......有問題的根本,始終係社會,社會唔覺醒而政府亂干預, 可能適得其反

"題外話" 與 "女仔被侵犯..." 兩篇回應的譬喻並不恰當。這事件的受害人並不是考評局、是考試的同學！因為考評局做出一個環境令這些同學變成受害人。他們是一宗因司機涉嫌不小心駕駛做成的交通意外而受傷的乘客。考評局便是這個司機！
至於什麼壓力、給予公眾過度的合理期望都是巧言令色罷了。考評局事實上是一個封閉、高傲、自以為是、高高在上的官僚機關（不是機構）。作風、手法與現今開放社會完全脫節。它應該是一個服務機構、為學生、學校、教育界、什至是商界、社會服務。為大家提供優質服務及承擔服務承諾！接受審計機構的審計（例如ISO等等）。所謂查找不足是也！考評局是嗎？大家體會體會吧！

寫文章要這樣高深？反向思維、我地唔會明？那就不要發表吧。Jacky TT 你不是麥當勞、不要越俎代庖！還是請麥當勞答吧。
"虛擬的出貓者"是不是解作實質上並不存在？是的話、那些衝擊亦是虛擬的衝擊、實質上並不存在？Jacky TT 你是否想說如果捉不到出貓者、一切都是虛擬、或者根本就沒有出貓者、但這事件已衝擊了會考這個制度？讀你的文章真有趣。

Where examinations are administered under an honor system, say, those in some university, students are allowed to write their answers unmonitored. It is obviously easy for them to cheat, and some in fact do. But when a student is found to have cheated, it is the student who will be condemned, not the system. For the crux of the matter consists in a Moral Wrong: in the student's having abused the Trust which other students have had in him through the system. He might be a clever boy, having beaten the system as some would say; but nothing reduces the fact that he, as a student, has committed a Moral Wrong.

HKCE is not administered under a complete honor system. But any student, who elects to sit in such an examination, must have accepted, however tacitly, a basic notion of fairness, which demands not only that others do not cheat, but also that he himself do not do likewise. The examination authorities have a duty to make sure that students can rely on the fairness of the examinations; but this duty in no way removes the student's own duty not to cheat.

If many students endeavor, whenever they can, to cheat, the examination authorities, for the sake of upholding the integrity of the system, would be justified to increase the penalty for those who are caught to have cheated. Such a move has nothing to do with the glorification of examination - let alone any alleged connection with the so-called Central Values. Where an honor system cannot be upheld in its entirety, there need be penalties; the less the participants are willing to fulfill their own duty (perhaps under the influence of a so-called "beat the system" mentality), the more the system is justified to guard itself through penal means. Cheating students will have no cause to plead.

It is very unhealthy to read the incident while neglecting the basic moral duty of the student. If students believe (wrongly I think) that they have no moral duty whatsoever in writing an examination, the authorities can, in return, have no trust in the students whatsoever, and declare, for instance, that any beeping of a cell phone shall disqualify the student, and that any student who intends to use the washroom, be searched by an examiner of the same sex.

The demonstration scheduled to take place on May 31, 2006, should, if it means to respect the basic notions of Trust and Moral Wrong at all, condemn not only the authorities, but first and foremost those cheating students. Absent such an act, it can lay no claim to the public's sympathy.

Y.T.

YT的道德上犯錯說法、陳義非常高。真是一帖清補涼。發人深醒！會考是可以決定同學下半生的一等一大事。過來人身同感受、出了問題人人關心乃人之常情。官僚大耍五常法（推側閃避卸）、不問責、不承擔、不負責反而諉過、把調查責任給了第三者、又提議刑事化。轉移事件焦點、令人以為社會沒有責備出貓者！除了行政錯誤、YT苦口婆心所述的 Moral Wrong, 這群官僚一律適用。但我們對他們除了口誅筆伐外、可以有其他制裁嗎？沒有！沒有！