小學讀際小學,中學時轉回傳統中學

heiB

有沒有家長的小朋友試過小學讀際小學,中學時轉回傳統中學,可行嗎?

papa_pop

Your question is valid and it really concerns top universities like Oxbridge. Apart from straight-A*s in GCSE, they set conditional offers rather high.

My observation is that it's comparatively easier to score As at UK exams than in HK. Take a look at their respective percentages (some top high schools are talking about 90%+ scoring A+ at GCSE while even the very best HK schools can only get about 2.2 As out of 9 subjects on average).  Some UK schools, not the top 20, have dozen of students getting 10A*+.  IF one really wishes to enrol in Oxbridge, he/she should go to the UK for high school and take the GCSE (not IGCSE) and they stand a better chance.

Mind you that ONLY the really creme de la creme of HK students (8As+ in HKCEE) stands a chance for Oxbridge.   How many are there in a year and how many of them eyeing only Oxbridge?

Anyway, HKCEE will be a passe but I doubt the percentage of getting A in the new diploma exam would be any easier.

原帖由 BabaTed 於 09-9-26 02:20 發表
elmostoney & other parents,

I have a question regarding 'UK中五會考 is a lot easier than HKCEE' from a long time ago, and would seek the comments from parents here.


My hubby has few cousins studyin ...

mattsmum

hk A level C = gce A/B, that was my days in the 80s too.

畢學武

忍不著再回應,

為什麼要說到美加星加坡呢?美加同英國學制完全不同,星加坡也不是單纯六年制中學(套用智慧小子的說話-做多点research 吧)。

又計一計年期,GCE yr10選科 HKCE F4選科,大家都有四年時來考A-Level,雖然本地學生比國際學校學生年紀大一年,但總沒相差太遠吧!

甚麽是正規教育應該是當地政府話事,所以我不會說香港K3是正規或英國Y1不是正規教育的話。現實是兩地都是十三年Pre-U正規教育,理得你是由一歲或十歲開始,香港K3程度深是個別學校的問題,理論上學生一年幼稚園也可不上。

很多人都說GCEAL比HKAL易考,原來是事實,
http://www.britishcouncil.org/eumd-hongkong-naric_briefing_note_29nov07.pdf
做報告的NARIC都乘認GCEALevel boardly comparable to HKAL

Quoted:
'The subjects are considered broadly comparable in terms of volume of study at both levels. In Hong Kong at the advanced level, students usually take 4-5 subjects. This is higher than the average number of A levels being taken in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but a review of volume indicates the syllabus and examinations are closer to A levels than AS levels. Therefore, it is legitimate to state that the HKALE is broadly comparable to a GCE A level. UK NARIC is adapting its comparison advice accordingly.'

我都不明白說GCE AL=HKAL為什麼會使一些國際學校家長有這麽大的反感,讀少一年,年輕一歲獲得相同學術成就不是很好嗎?有什麽問題呢?

我得乘認讀國際學校比本地學校好,可以愉快學習,少功課,壓力細,又比較容易入世界一流大學。而本地學校學生多功課,壓力大,又要大一年爭入二.三流大學,更常常被人話高分低能(對不起,智慧小子!),不過在這個家庭總收入平均每月得萬多兩萬元的社會,時常說國際學校比本地學校好而又不提出解決方法,衹會使人想起晉惠帝何不食肉糜的故事!

算了,真的不說了,算我和所有三年制大學的入學政策都錯了吧!(真的認錯了,不要再插我吧,求求你們!)

PS. Al媽,我沒有說過HKU學士=UK碩士。

[ 本帖最後由 畢學武 於 09-9-30 23:04 編輯 ]

WYmom

原帖由 mow-mow 於 09-9-29 21:27 發表
Wisekid2007 & WYmom,
I'm afraid I do not buy your logic of including the kindergarten years which is actually not compulsory education and is often termed 'pre-school'.
Following your logic, then how  ...

I have explained and now you said you don't recognize that studying one more year of kinder is one more year of education and then that's your logic!  


You cannot just equate all Y1-13 UK cirriculum to local P.1-F.7 cirriculum, that's my originally point.  Kinder education in HK is quite intensive, not just playing around.  For example, local kids have already learnt addition and substraction upto 20 or more in K3 at age 6.  In UK IS Y.1, kids have finished only K2 at age 5 will learn this, just like local kids in K3. So you cannot just eliminate all pre-school education as education by saying that it is not compulsory while in reality that all kids start kinder at 3 or even at 2 until 6.

If you only talks about official rules, then the official rule for receiving primary education in HK is 6 years old, if I apply the same on UK IS kids, then their Y1(age 5) should not be counted as education as well, so according to your logic, students in UK IS receive 5 years of primary and 7 years of secondary education, while students in HK local schools receive 6 years of primary and 7 years of secondary education, is it so obvious that there is one year more?

For IS of US/ Canadian/Singapore system, students start primary at age 6, but they only study 6 years in secondary, but local HK students study 7 years in secondary, so it is so obvious that HK students receive one more year of education!  Can't you get it?

I just tell that it is the fact that HKCEE/HKAL is one year level higher than GCSE O/AL, if you don't buy this, you can take a look at the exams.  I know that internationally they are equally recognised as secondary/Pre-U graduation qualification, but it does not mean that the standard should be equalised.  It is really more favourable for HK students to take GCSE as they HAVE really received one more year of education even you deny it.   It is simply the fact!

I can only say that in the past HK students did learn more difficult syllubus than overseas students, their standard SHOULD be higher, but whether they are REALLY higher than others or not is another issue.  Now, with the new 334 system, they are par with the overseas students and their standard is to be assessed.

For University education, it is different from kinder to secondary, it is more a specialised career-oriented education rather than the basic education for everyone.  Some HK students take 4 or even 5 years of U education instead of 3, all depends on which profession.

[ 本帖最後由 WYmom 於 09-9-30 09:04 編輯 ]

mow-mow

Wisekid2007 & WYmom,
I'm afraid I do not buy your logic of including the kindergarten years which is actually not compulsory education and is often termed 'pre-school'.
Following your logic, then how should one count nursery & pre-nursery years?
School proper starts at primary school, ie P1 & Year 1 respectively for the 2 systems.
You can protest all you like, but academic institutes internationally recognise HKCEE as equivalent to GCSE O-levels and NOT higher.
How they are going to view the new HK Diploma though would be interesting.
If as you suggest that they should view it as the same as A levels, then under your logic that HKCEE is 1 year higher than GCSE O-level, HKU degree will also be a higher degree than UK university degrees based on the fact that their graduates spend 4 years rather than 3 in university?!

畢學武

唉!算了吧!

Ｎ年前香港真是跟足英國的,所以用英國書沒所為,現在環境不同,當然不可同日而語。

國際上始终乘認GCE A-Level=HK A-Level,就像同一科目不同試卷,有深有淺. 有難有易,都是入三年際大學入學的標準,我無謂再說了。

原帖由 almom 於 09-9-29 18:55 發表



GCE A level =\= HK A level.

almom

原帖由 畢學武 於 09-9-29 18:49 發表
對不起.我不是說國際學校比本地學校程度低,我祇是說GCE A Level=HK A Level

GCE A level =\= HK A level.

almom

原帖由 畢學武 於 09-9-29 18:33 發表
因為課程會在教科書上反影出來

No.
Unless the textbook was desiged for the curriculum.
You stated so that HK students did not have their own textbooks. So they had no choice but to use other curriculum textbooks.
The UK textbooks hardly reflect the actual HK curriculum.

[ 本帖最後由 almom 於 09-9-29 18:54 編輯 ]

畢學武

對不起.我不是說國際學校比本地學校程度低,我祇是說GCE A Level=HK A Level

如果我說國際學校學生十六歲可有本地學校學生十七歲的學術成就,這不是讚美嗎?

不過有這個情況出現,不是因為本地學校學生蠢,而祗是給從政者政策的扭曲而矣。

原帖由 WYmom 於 09-9-29 18:09 發表


This is just to clarify the illusion of most people thinking HK local school standard is higher than IS standard when they compare kids of the seem-to-be "same" year.  If you have a kid of 5 years o ...

畢學武

因為課程會在教科書上反影出來

原帖由 almom 於 09-9-29 17:36 發表



Why are you still dragging on the text book thing...?

畢學武

低程度的書不是你說的,是我在61樓說的,我見你沒意見便以為你同意,對不起。

你真殘忍.祇讓我開心幾分鐘。

或者我要改為

2.我的老師比你的懶惰,因為他們大多依書直說,而我是一個非常好運的學生,因我可用淺的書去考一個深的試,又比我過關。

原帖由 wisekid2007 於 09-9-29 17:39 發表
Sorry I don't think you are 非常聰明甚至是天才的學生. How can you come out such conclusion.

Have I ever said that those textbooks are 低程度的書? I only said that "What we have learnt are much harder ...

[ 本帖最後由 畢學武 於 09-9-29 18:28 編輯 ]

WYmom

原帖由 almom 於 09-9-29 17:30 發表


I was refering to the discussion of HK vs UK curriculum, whether in secondary school level and university level.
I was merely saying that although it appears that HK students seem to have an extra y ...

This is just to clarify the illusion of most people thinking HK local school standard is higher than IS standard when they compare kids of the seem-to-be "same" year.  If you have a kid of 5 years old studying in IS Y1, you will understand why we won't expect the kid to learn same thing as a 6-year old kid in P.1 of local school.  When kids grow up, they will vary more widely, some can outperform others very far away, no matter in which type of schools.

P.S.  Seems that only wisekid2007 got my point of "dumber" HK students!

[ 本帖最後由 WYmom 於 09-9-29 18:11 編輯 ]

almom

原帖由 畢學武 於 09-9-29 17:18 發表
結論:

1.你是一個好學生,又勤力,又主動。你的老師也非常勤力。
2.我的老師比你的懶惰,因為他們大多依書直說,而我是一個非常聰明甚至是天才的學生,因我可用低程度的書去考高程度的試,又比我過關。


你使我今天很高 ...

Why are you still dragging on the text book thing...?

almom

原帖由 wisekid2007 於 09-9-29 17:09 發表
For students with similar talents and capacities (i.e. in general for those local and IS students in HK), the differences in the outcome are mainly due to the differences in style of education.

I was refering to the discussion of HK vs UK curriculum, whether in secondary school level and university level.
I was merely saying that although it appears that HK students seem to have an extra year of education, it does not necessarily mean that they are more advanced than students in the UK.
And thus HKU would not be the same as masters in the UK.

畢學武

結論:

1.你是一個好學生,又勤力,又主動。你的老師也非常勤力。
2.我的老師比你的懶惰,因為他們大多依書直說,而我是一個非常聰明甚至是天才的學生,因我可用低程度的書去考高程度的試,又比我過關。


你使我今天很高興,謝謝!

PS: 我不是說本地學校比國際學校好,如果當年我有機會讀國際學校(如果我父母比得起錢)我相信我不知幾開心,人生也完全不同也不定,天曉得!

原帖由 wisekid2007 於 09-9-29 15:56 發表
Do you understand that even using similar textbooks doesn't mean the teaching level as well as the exam questions level will be the same.

I don't know what the current text books used by our secondar ...