Opinions of the Primary School Registration System

[3Boys]

LOLMum:

what if supply of labour exceeds demand?


if the school advisory member hold onto his post for a decade, is he not depriving another from contributing?

Not getting into details here....

Do you agree in principle that NOT all that are eligible under current Phase 2A should be equally deserving for priority places.

[3Boys]

LOLMum:

even if $$$ is meant for school, it is still considered as buying a place in p1, so is illegal. thus principal and parent are in trouble.


dont play play. not worth it.

Lets extend the concept a little. How about contributions that will normally cost $$. Say a lawyer that contributes legal counsel over a few months, for a priority place. Is that considered 'buying' a place?

[LOLMum]

3Boys:

Not getting into details here....


Do you agree in principle that NOT all that are eligible under current Phase 2A should be equally deserving for priority places.

i disagree. full stop.

[LOLMum]

3Boys:

Lets extend the concept a little. How about contributions that will normally cost $$. Say a lawyer that contributes legal counsel over a few months, for a priority place. Is that considered 'buying' a place?

give free legal advice and get a confirmed place in p1? no, if he is a pv and there is no need for balloting at phase 2b. yes, if he is not a pv, didnt go thru balloting (if dd exceeds ss) like the rest.

if it is not breaking the law, then shouldnt all pv be guaranteed a place and not go for balloting?

[3Boys]

LOLMum:

i disagree. full stop.

Its hard to see why a sleeping member of the alumni should be granted the same privilege as a hard working one, or a greater privilege than a non-alumni who may be hungrier and better able to contribute, but hey, you are free to rationalize your opinion, naturally.

But its this coziness amongst insiders that contributes to the sense of inequity and discontent and fuels the outrage.

[3Boys]

LOLMum:

give free legal advice and get a confirmed place in p1? no, if he is a pv and there is no need for balloting at phase 2b. yes, if he is not a pv, didnt go thru balloting (if dd exceeds ss) like the rest.

if it is not breaking the law, then shouldnt all pv be guaranteed a place and not go for balloting?

Now apply the above to the rationalizations by a few forumers about why alumni should be given priority at Phase 2A. It was stated that SOME alumni are active contributors to the functioning of the school and school culture, and therefore ALL alumni should be granted priority admission at Phase 2A.

Given that under the current system, that is de facto a confirmed place in P1, how does.......

LOLMum:

give free legal advice and get a confirmed place in p1? no,

be consistent with that? I.e. How is the act of active contribution as a rationalisation to preserve guaranteed admission in 2A any different from a straightforward contribution to ensure a guaranteed admission? Or is it NOT an adequate rationalisation, and therefore 2A needs to be parsed out between active and inactive?

Just a discussion. Not taking this personally with you hor?

[LOLMum]

3Boys:

LOLMum:

give free legal advice and get a confirmed place in p1? no, if he is a pv and there is no need for balloting at phase 2b. yes, if he is not a pv, didnt go thru balloting (if dd exceeds ss) like the rest.

if it is not breaking the law, then shouldnt all pv be guaranteed a place and not go for balloting?

Now apply the above to the rationalizations by a few forumers about why alumni should be given priority at Phase 2A. It was stated that SOME alumni are active contributors to the functioning of the school and school culture, and therefore ALL alumni should be granted priority admission at Phase 2A.

Given that under the current system, that is de facto a confirmed place in P1, how does.......

LOLMum:

give free legal advice and get a confirmed place in p1? no,

be consistent with that? I.e. How is the act of active contribution as a rationalisation to preserve guaranteed admission in 2A any different from a straightforward contribution to ensure a guaranteed admission? Or is it NOT an adequate rationalisation, and therefore 2A needs to be parsed out between active and inactive?

Just a discussion. Not taking this personally with you hor?

not to worry about getting personal, we are afterall adults with common sense. in a healthy debate, you have the right to be offended and i have the right to offend you. that's way to get people to use the grey cells.

i must admit i have not noted the part about board advisor in phase 2a being guaranteed a confirmed place. i always thought of phase 2a as alumni members (active and nonactive) as like in my many discussions with friends and teachers.

now that does seem unfair in phase 2a. have to give it a thought and chat with friends to find out more.

[dorisp]

3Boys:

Do you agree in principle that NOT all that are eligible under current Phase 2A should be equally deserving for priority places.

I support that there should be differentiation in this Phase (2A) between those 'deserving\" and those \"not deserving\". But in reality, and from practicality to execution, it is very hard to quantify. And when the much extra effort to execute and to differentiate outweight the good intentions where this suggestion is originally intended, it may be an uphill task to get it through. :lol:

[Busymom]

3Boys:

Lets extend the concept a little. How about contributions that will normally cost $$. Say a lawyer that contributes legal counsel over a few months, for a priority place. Is that considered 'buying' a place?

Just thinking along the line of some of the earlier arguements, wouldn't this cause an even greater divide between the haves and the have-nots, if phase 2A also has to go through such a filtering process?

Personally for me, I do see a difference between a lawyer providing legal counsel in order to get a chance at phase 2B, as opposed to someone donating a large sum of money to the school to build a certain facility in order to get a chance at phase 2B. Both do not have a guaranteed place, but in the case of the latter, the person doesn't even have to sweat one bit, and the donation may just be loose change to him to begin with. :roll:

[Busymom]

LOLMum:

give free legal advice and get a confirmed place in p1? no, if he is a pv and there is no need for balloting at phase 2b. yes, if he is not a pv, didnt go thru balloting (if dd exceeds ss) like the rest.

if it is not breaking the law, then shouldnt all pv be guaranteed a place and not go for balloting?

I think you saying that it is fine if he has to go through balloting like everyone else, but not fine if he is guaranteed a place without having to go through balloting?

What is the context - phase 2A or 2B? :?