選讀拔萃女小學,還是讀瑪利諾修院小學

LesMis99

原帖由 DGJS 於 11-2-14 13:53 發表
我不知道具體數字，但我在網上找到DGS的中一新生入學申請，有申請學費減免。我也知道有人申请DGJS的, 但我找不到网页。

http://www.dgs.edu.hk/popup/important_dates_c.htm

...

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 bright students with financial problems.

I will definitely encourage my daughter to make friends with them and to learn how one can make something possible from being impossible.

LesMis99

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???

LesMis99

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_[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 ]

LesMis99

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....

LesMis99

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 ]

LesMis99

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。

LesMis99

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  ...

LesMis99

A new thread talking about 'Need-blind' policy will be a good education to the general public in HK.

Still remember that I was asked by those so-called US Need-blind Ivy League to fill in the details such as how many cars my family owned and their makes, size of the house, etc .... when I applied for undergraduate and graduate studies in US.

原帖由 DGJS 於 11-2-22 10:11 發表
I believe it is better to create another thread.

Just to comment on the so called Need-blind policy! My niece is a very smart girl in the US. However, her family simply cannot support the "Need-blind ...

[ 本帖最後由 LesMis99 於 11-2-22 11:18 編輯 ]

LesMis99

I guess the point I would like to bring up is that asking for the proof of address should not be  something alarming at all as the HK government-run schools have been adopting the policy for decades. This is a 'standard' procedure that everyone has already accepted in HK, similar to that we need to carry our HKID card with us all the time. I was just being laughed by my colleagues in my office (from US, UK, AU, FR, JP) that somebody has thought that hk private school uses address as a mean to assess how wealthy one is in order to offer a Pr.1 place. They thought this is really ridiculous indeed!

原帖由 4eyesDad 於 11-2-22 10:34 發表
LesMis99: DGJS is a private school. My understanding is that it is not part of any government Discretionary Places Allocation system and hence the address proof requirement is irrelevant. I have appli ...

[ 本帖最後由 LesMis99 於 11-2-22 11:13 編輯 ]

LesMis99

I can simply put it this way. I propose that the successful rate only depends on kids' ability/performance and is independent of the address one puts on the application form. The perception that people sees more students living in Repulse Bay (as you put it) than any other places is a result of more applicants from Repulse Bay, not because their successful rate is higher. As successful rate is constant across the region, this is a fair game indeed. In order to tilt the balance of mix of the students from different backgrounds, I think smart kids (not necessarily from upper class family) should be encouraged to apply to the school and not to be deterred from doing so just because of living in public housing estate, for example!

原帖由 4eyesDad 於 11-2-22 14:11 發表
Now 2 views are before us:
One view represented by Lawsonmoon is that the scrutiny of applicant's address at interivew stage is an abnoxious practice, discriminatory, and probably contrary to the very ...

LesMis99

This is really minor thing. Sending kids to school likes Eton, Winchester in Britain or DG/DB in HK has only one purpose, letting them compete in a highly competitive environment in a very disciplined manner to strive for excellence, chellenging one's limit indeed!

Having said that, one should let it go the 'Hallo of elite school' once the school years have finished because people/students are always biased after spending most of their study life there. Sooner or later, they will need to integrate with others in the society where things will look very differently.

原帖由 DGJS 於 11-2-22 15:16 發表
LesMis99：


其實有時我對DG的規矩都有D莫名其妙。比如說，如果學生的洋名不在HKID內, 老師便不會叫她的洋名。除非父母替她改身份證！

不過，都沒理由因為E D吾揀DG。



...

LesMis99

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 that the government or the management from private sectors adopted to select their successors among our younger generation.

For those in the age group ranging from 35 to 50 years old (like me), what we have been witnessing is the constant changes shaping and reshaping HK society and the people's traditional 'values' regarding education.

What we used to value the most or highly regarded have suddenly become obsolete or a burden of the society, like R&D. This can be easily seen from the trend in the payscale in various occupations. Take 'lecturers' for an example, their pay started somewhere from the $40k during the early '90s. After 21 years, the same position is actually paid less today. On the contrary, if one joined a multi-national financial instutition, the pay could have been risen by few times over the same period. Ironically, I know a lot of my friends who are graduates from the top unversities like MIT, Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, Beijing U and TsinghuaU, etc (really being the top of the tops in their subject areas) almost all ended up joining investment banks (doing IPOs, Derivatives, Trading, etc) and consulting firms. Some of them were even doing medical or law degrees at univeristy. Really none of them are doing academic research indeed. In my opinion, this is what has caused the shift in our value system that leads to the changes in our expectation on 'Education'. Nowadays, a lot of them regrettably thought that they might have made a wrong choice because the best time in financial industries have been all over. Does it imply that people will need to re-value what they are thinking good today might become obsolete in 20 years when their kids grow up?.... I better stop here before running away too far.....

原帖由 brian61950 於 11-2-24 22:33 發表
傳統或lB也各有所長,自修也可做博士.
無乜讀書也可做首富.

周星弛話齌,唔偷,唔搶,唔做壞事,做個對社會有貢獻的人.

我尊敬這樣的人.

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 ...

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。

LesMis99

me too!

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