给翻译翻议呗

上华新， 学英文


---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 niumum 的帖子 “indeed life is unequal”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12358740

The unequal distribution of resources may not be rational, but it is inevitable in a capitalist and meritocratic society. Even the us share the same problem: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571417-how-prevent-virtuous-meritocracy-entrenching-itself-top-repairing-rungs

However it is not the end of the game for the less resourced as they have another chance in getting into top secondary schools, if they work hard enough. This is social mobility at work. The government is trying to level the playing field but it is impossible to just redistribute resources and give each successive generation an equal footing.

For top schools like Nanyang, RGPS, alumni kids have a higher probability of being better than other neighbourhood kids since more than likely their parents are well educated and well resourced. This is not from an individual perspective,the schools would have to look at this statistically.

The alumni system is not removed for many reasons; my point was that property prices correlates with giving absolute priority to proximity. Cooling measures are for the market as a whole so it is not in the picture, but if staying near a school guarantees admission, the prices in this area will be skewed as (some) parents are prepared to pay any price for a place in the school.


---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 爱游泳的鼠 的帖子 “hmm”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12358776

仰望下

我想说的是，这里的孩子以后都是莱佛士华中的，何必为小学犯愁:) 难道是为了孙辈入学的问题


---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 king 的帖子 “咋又用英文了？”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12358802

但是至少应该给校友那两轮的总学额设一个限度。这样的话，校友仍然在phase 2A, 仍然是占了便宜的。

小学校友和大学校友不同，跟日后成就的correlation并没有那么夸张。为什么南洋之类的会考成绩好，一部分也是占了GEP centre的光，其实GEP班里很多学生并不来自本校低年级部。

至于房产的问题，所有国家都存在学区房，不见得房价都夸张得像春运的车票，也不见得很多人会为了孩子的学额去买大大超过自己能力的房产，市场自然会调解到一个平衡点。

现在这样，剥夺了大部分住在名校一公里内的孩子的就近入学权，说实话我觉得简直匪夷所思。

没有一个制度是可以十几年不变的最合适的。如果教育部连微调都不敢的话，只能说既得利益者的话语权太强大了。

---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 niumum 的帖子 “给校友绝对优先权的好处是保证生源的质量”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12358697

也许有些人不介意让孩子每天花很多时间在上学放学的路上，可是我很介意。明明有很近的学校，却要被踢到更远的地方去上学，我觉得很不公平的。

---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 niumum 的帖子 “哈哈中文答英文不是很怪”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12358816

Besides having more resources, those schools are good because they get to cherry pick the gifted students ( bright non-alumni descents, lol) in primary 3. Not because their alumni kids are brighter than others.
If promoting social mobility is desired, why wait till secondary school. Why are non-alumni descents starting their game at handicap line. (lol this may not be appropriate, as I believe all schools in sg are equally good, just some are more equal than others :-))
Anw, we can talk till cows come home on this and nothing in reality is going to change. I m not going to reply u anymore. All my points are here.



---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 niumum 的帖子 “well”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12358804

的校友会失去优先权。

但我还是认为一公里内保证入学的话，那一区的房价会飙升到疯狂的程度，毕竟小孩入学这件事上理性的人不多。

可能可以要求入住时间超过X年才算数。


---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 snowflamingo 的帖子 “再说一遍，没说要给住得近的absolute priority”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12358834

are brighter, but they are more provileged and have a higher chance of success, statistically speaking.

and GEP only represents 1% (or 5%) of the cohort, that is probably slightly higher than the chance that a randomly admitted neighourhood kid will turn out well.

again schools are not governments, they need to maintain their status as premier schools. i thought the point of contention was whether alumni kids will contribute to the school more than other kids? instead of government trying to level the playing field by taking away alumni prority. schools and governments interest may not be aligned. and yes schools need to preserve their "tradition" this way.


---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 爱游泳的鼠 的帖子 “hmm time to sleep”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12358840

除去更能保留母校文化传统价值这类的虚的方面

要为了培养精英，为啥不看父母中学或者高中后的表现，毕竟小学啥也说明不了啊，在邻里接受教育然后上了好中学好高中的不是更说明孩子是可造之才，家长上心，孩子能力强？

尤其是兄弟姐妹能在里面的，后面的孩子也能沾光，这又是神码道理，一龙九子各不同见的例子太多了。

反正社会上的精英，其实也就是大富大贵们，想上任何好学校都会有办法，捐个网球场，修个游泳馆就得了，不如把资源放开给平头百姓。

当然，既得利益者也是政策制定者是不会放弃自己利益的。况且学校的资源分配不公，水平有差距，以后这种情况不会有多大改善。

我们没办法改变现实，但并不能因此否定它的缺陷和不合理。

---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 niumum 的帖子 “just to clarify that i'm not saying alumni kids”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12358858

李光耀80年代的优生学论曾引起轩然大波

新加坡搞捐款也保证不了入学吧，不然罗杰斯也不用做义工。


---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 走走 的帖子 “我也超级不理解现在的校友制度”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12358997

When I sat in the 55th anniversary concert for our school, I realised that the power of alumni. When there are two people had almost the same ability, the employer would choose their school alumni. In business, they will prefer alumni as partners. There are much more chance for u who r from an elite school. U own resources. Elite schools own more hard and soft resources. Furthermore, The school value would also affect the choices, as they felt they knew each other better. They had shared the same school value when they were young. That is very important. getting into a elite school is not just for the academic results, it is also for the skills, creativity and critical thinking, sharing on value.

---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 niumum 的帖子 “indeed life is unequal”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12358740

The system is set by those who had power. If it affect them, it will be hard to change.

---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 niumum 的帖子 “well”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12358804

in singapore, pre tertiary alumni "branding" is more entrenched as there are too few universities.



在 很多人心目中，讀大學像乘飛機一樣，分頭等、商務客位和經濟客位。兩者最大的分別，是大學的等級制度(hierarchy)嚴格得多，不是付更多錢就可以 「upgrade」（升級）。只有最天真——或者最清醒——的父母才會相信，最重要的不是讀哪一家大學，而是抱什麼心態去讀大學。家長的共識是孩子在哪裏 畢業，就會被當成甚麼人看待。



無疑，人的個性、能力和身份是可以由社會建構出來的。哪一家大學收你為徒和給你學位，在一定程度上已經給你 界定成甚麼人。社會學家稱之為大學對其學生與畢業生的「界定能力」(defining power)。大學越出名，「擁有」學生的能力就越厲害。你不必在它那裏畢業，只要在那裏待過，也會變成「生是他的人，死是他的鬼」。微軟的蓋茨和 facebook的扎克伯格永遠會在哈佛退學生(Harvard dropouts)的英雄榜上留名，其道理在此。


---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 watercooler 的帖子 “Haha...so interesting!”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12359002

but it is definitely in the interest of the school

and to overhaul this unfair system will make schools lose their heterogeneity.


---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 watercooler 的帖子 “In fact, the alumni parents from elite school had more power.”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12359007

1) I have a doctor friend who came from a neighborhood school stay within 1km from NYPS. His kid did not manage to get into NYPS, because the slots were taken by some other kid stay in jurong west or so, whose parent by chance studied in NYPS 30 years ago. He is spending more time on road sending his kids to a school miles away for the next 6 years.

I have another doctor friend stay within 1km from TaoNan. He is less hopeful of getting his kid in this school within his walking distance. The plan is sending the kids to maris stella many miles away, which was his primary school.

If this legacy system is making sense to you, it certainly has not made sense to many of us.

2) I have seen statistics showing graduate kids outperformed the non-graduate kids in certain areas. But none statistics showed alumni kids had more promising future than the kids stay nearby the school. If you have done some private studies, share with us, before concluding it is statistically proven.

3) I have a lawyer colleague studied in NYPS many years ago. He told me he was in NYPS for its proximity. It was the choice for ppl living in the area that time. He did not expect it to be a school so sought after now.

4) If the proximity rule were adopted, applying your logic, the top schools still get to pick from the most promising pool of genes whatsoever , as someone cannot afford a residential property near NYPS is less likely to be successful than the ones who can ( who are perceived to be more privileged and socially resourceful). And the one who are willing to move and stay nearby a dream primary school shall be perceived to be more committed in education than the one who are not. This part of argument of yours does not stand by itself.

5) For the sake of the argument, do not mix the concept of alumni of a graduate school or a top JC with the alumni of a primary school. You are totally missing the point. We might pay respect to ppl who are ex-HwoChong, ex-RI, ex-Harvard etc. But If you go round and telling others how special you feel being an ex-NYPS , I bet you be labeled “joke of the day”.

6) let us wait and see which is more right. Only time will tell.


---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 niumum 的帖子 “just to clarify that i'm not saying alumni kids”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12358858

i was just trying to rebutt that point that alumni make no more contribution than the other kids.

the examples you have quoted are from your personal circle of elites, and it is not representative of the general public. the systems may not have benefitted "many of you", it definitely has benefitted the schools, as they manage to stay at the top with the support of the alumni.

As i have reiterated many times, alumni kids are from more well off families, higher percentage of lawyers and doctors for sure, and you did not deny the fact that better resourced kids have higher chance of success. as for statistics, the fact that half NYPS pupils score more than 240 in PSLE prove my point, you cant say all of them are from GEP?

as for your lawyer friend's case. that is the general trend of the society as it becomes matured and stratified. it does not prove any point.

the fourth point comes back to the argument of old money VS new money. with abundant affluence money is not a problem, and the new rich (who may be despised by the old rich) can join the ranks of the social elites merely by putting in more money, that is certainly not the wish of the old rich.


---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 爱游泳的鼠 的帖子 “to the firm believer of legacy system”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=179_12359086