OAL要靜靜雞戳破你exchange夢噢！ 校園, 10年12月號 文：渣斐 當大家仲諗住plan個完美時間表，用Year1-2加埋Year3上學期衝晒D必修科同埋拉盡GPA希望可以響報exchange programme果陣可以揀到心儀嘅學校嘅時候，本報小記向OAL（學術交流處）職員證實，無錯，你嘅夢要到此完結啦！ 大家係OAL網頁見到FAQ啲問題與答案果陣，以為Year3（final-year）實可以報到exchange，咁你就中伏啦！OAL出年會改制，所有Year3學生就算你GPA幾高，第一round嘅shortlist會全部被deny，只能夠係第二round，有位剩嘅時候，先到大家揀下籮底橙，原因係「因為大學唔鼓勵學生extend去exchange」，咁但係Year1考得唔好Year2報唔到，Year3夠分你又整色整水想攔住啲學生，話就話鼓勵學生去exchange，多體驗唔同國家嘅生活經驗，實際上大學高層係咪真係咁鐘意講一套做一套呢？而且，即使Year1-2報exchange都好，好多時候學生都係會extend，咁鼓唔鼓勵year3報有咩分別呢？ Year3唔好以為高分仲有少少著數，你係要同其他人鬥快爭嫁！想搶先揀到心儀國家？睇怕你出年都要響何東夫人樓（OAL office）門口搭個帳篷，等佢一開口果陣即刻衝入去爭個頭破血流先得個exchange機會，不過，睇怕你都只可以去下大陸、台灣嚕！ 唔滿意啊？咁你地要積極向校方表達意見啦！最近中大經常搞師生座談會啊、校長夜話等等，快啲趁呢啲時間向校方反映問題啊！！ 分享至: 10 Responses student 2010 年 12 月 9 日 extend to go overseas and extend after going overseas are different matter, you should ask why the OAL has this decision made. is it becuz the credit wont be transfered, year 3 students treat it as a holiday before work? i am not suggest this but i think you guys should try to find out b4 placing the school officials in the evil position. btw, i am offered a chance to go overseas in round 3, and there are still vacancy in colleges in the US, UK and some other places like sweden. although i hv always appreciated cusp for its nice work, do not try to exaggerate facts. 回覆 student2 2010 年 12 月 10 日 quota is limited, even if yr 3 students can enter 1st round, that means fewer yr 2 students can have the opportunity for exchange. Do you mean yr 2 students should argue then? OAL just re-prioritized the list. as the student above said, you should ask why OAL has this decision made. Furthermore, it is the problem of students of having poor GPA in the 1st year if they want to go to exchange in the 2nd year (Since quota is limited, competition must exist) or if you want to solve the whole problem, urge OAL for more exchange quota. This’s another matter. Don’t always say “objection” 回覆 student3 2010 年 12 月 10 日 “用Year1-2加埋Year3上學期衝晒D必修科同埋拉盡GPA” This is the first wrong assumption – kind of dirty tricks, therefore not a valid reason for going to exchange in year 3. “咁但係Year1考得唔好Year2報唔到，Year3夠分你又整色整水想攔住啲學生” This is the second wrong assumption – you assume that all students cannot get good results in their first two years, but there must be some students doing well; they are those students eligible for exchanges. Work harder if you want exchange opportunities. No pain no gain. 回覆 CU ppl 2010 年 12 月 12 日 I’m sorry but I am just GOBSMACKED by the ignorance of the above comments! I don’t think I even wanna bother to reply to all the points so I’ll just pick some to answer. 1. “btw, i am offered a chance to go overseas in round 3, and there are still vacancy in colleges in the US, UK and some other places like sweden.” oh yes! it’s true. But do you remember how many places are there in the 2nd/3rd round? and how many are there in the 1st round? COMPARE the figures yourself and think again whether it is fair to final year students! 2. “even if yr 3 students can enter 1st round, that means fewer yr 2 students can have the opportunity for exchange. Do you mean yr 2 students should argue then?” oh this is the most shocking point among all. You are ALREADY assuming year-2 students should have a higher priority to go on an exchange! What’s your rationale behind? 3. ““咁但係Year1考得唔好Year2報唔到，Year3夠分你又整色整水想攔住啲學生” This is the second wrong assumption – you assume that all students cannot get good results in their first two years, but there must be some students doing well; they are those students eligible for exchanges.” I don’t know whether there are any difficulties for you to read Chinese (though it’s funny that your English is poor as well). From where can you deduce the writer is “assuming ALL students cannot get good results in their first two years”? What I understand is that the writer is just saying “there are cases like this”, which means there are SOME people like this, not all. All in all, I totally object to this change of policy and the reason is that they are OBVIOUSLY discriminating against final-year students! Sorry I don’t mean to offend anyone but I’m so shocked because I can’t believe these all comments were supposedly written by university students, let alone they are from CUHK. 回覆 student2 2010 年 12 月 12 日 “oh this is the most shocking point among all. You are ALREADY assuming year-2 students should have a higher priority to go on an exchange! What’s your rationale behind?” This assumption is made because of OAL, therefore I said we need to ask OAL why. I believe every departments make their decision carefully, they must have reasons to support their actions. In this point, I assume year-2 students should have a higher priority. But you and the writer just oppose by saying “unfairness” without knowing the reasons behind. I should say it is always unfair in CUHK (what do you think by “fair”?), the best example is the course registration system. High-year students have higher priority during the course registration for a long time. It is definitely unfair, isn’t it? But those lower year students have never argued for the higher priority. Because they understand the need for high-year students to register the courses first, in order to meet the requirements. There are in fact far more unfairness existing in CUHK. Different professors give different grade distributions, different faculties and departments can have some bonus marks added for their exchange score, etc. They are just the facts that we accepted, but it doesn’t mean it is fair. Because of this change, you object it. However both the writer and your stand on the opposition side because of unfairness. It just doesn’t make sense. It shows that some people are just standing on the opposition side just because there are changes. Therefore I say, for this re-prioritization, you first need to ask OAL why. Then we can try to justify it’s fair or not. (Though I don’t think there exists a fair system.) I am shocked to see the above comment as well. I should say I absolutely agree with a professor I met, she said that this magazine always stands on the opposition side. for all the matters. (It seems the only thing I agree is the Liu Xiaobo matter) 回覆 student3 2010 年 12 月 13 日 @CU ppl From where can you deduce the writer is “assuming ALL students cannot get good results in their first two years”? What I understand is that the writer is just saying “there are cases like this”, which means there are SOME people like this, not all. ———————————————— It means you understand this point as well! You agree that some people can get good results; therefore I state that these people can have exchange opportunities. There is no problem after all. Final year students who want exchange opportunities but do not get good results in early years simply fail. (But this point is not agreed in the article according to my understanding on it – the author holds the opinion that these students should be given a chance to go to exchange. Thus I make this point.) This is fair, isn’t it? And I am not going to argue anymore on this article because I find it meaningless and I believe people do not change their stances easily, especially when they hold a strong opinion on the matter. 回覆 CU ppl 2010 年 12 月 13 日 You are even more interesting now. I am not sure whether it’s your problem of expressing your views in English or it is really what you think. What you said is just not logical. 1. “his assumption is made because of OAL, therefore I said we need to ask OAL why. I believe every departments make their decision carefully, they must have reasons to support their actions. In this point, I assume year-2 students should have a higher priority. But you and the writer just oppose by saying “unfairness” without knowing the reasons behind.” You don’t know their rationale behind and then you just TOO SIMPLY assume that they are right because they should have some certain reason for what they have decided. Isn’t it very funny? Is this even “thinking”? Is this even how a university student’s mind should process? You are just following the herd! You don’t even know what their rationale is before you agree with them. See my point? I believe everyone, especially university students, should have some critical thinking themselves, instead of agreeing on something even without knowing what’s going on! And now let me tell you what I’ve heard. They did this because they think it’s weird for someone, whose final semester is not in CU, to graduate with a CUHK certificate. So what do you think? 2. “the best example is the course registration system. High-year students have higher priority during the course registration for a long time. It is definitely unfair, isn’t it? But those lower year students have never argued for the higher priority. Because they understand the need for high-year students to register the courses first, in order to meet the requirements.” GOBSMACKED. Do you even know what you are saying? You said you KNOW they did this because senior-year students have to graduate soon and therefore they need to fulfill their requirements more urgently. YES! This is exactly why they are doing so. Final-year students must take some core courses asap because there might be only just 1 or 2 semesters to go or else they can’t graduate. Their need is more urgent than first-year or second-year students, who AT LEAST have 3 semesters or more to go. What’s wrong to serve people whose need is greater and much more urgent? Got my point? If not, let me give you some examples. If what you are saying is right, then there shouldn’t be any lifts in MTR stations, which are tailored mainly for handicapped people, because they give the handicapped ones a privilege. There also should not be any children seats at McDonald’s because this is tailored for one group of people only. But hey they just have greater needs! If there is nothing to facilitate them, this is what we call “UNFAIR”. See it? You are DISTORTING how we should look at things! 3. “There are in fact far more unfairness existing in CUHK. Different professors give different grade distributions, different faculties and departments can have some bonus marks added for their exchange score, etc. They are just the facts that we accepted, but it doesn’t mean it is fair.” Yes, there isn’t any solution for the grade distribution problem. We have different courses, different professors and different assessments. We can solve this only if we are all handled by one professor/organisation. This is inevitable here but is totally avoidable when it comes to the exchange matters, which are all handled by OAL, which is a SINGLE organisation. And do you even know WHY they have some bonus points for some departments? If no, then try to find out why. If yes, my explanation would be the same as 2. 4. “Because of this change, you object it. However both the writer and your stand on the opposition side because of unfairness. It just doesn’t make sense.” What? Because there is unfairness in many aspects so it does not make sense if we ask for fairness? Can’t you be even more pessimistic and funnier? It’s that we SHOULD try harder to kick out all the unfairness and and gradually make the whole society more fair to everyone. It’s not because there is a lot of unfairness and then we should not ask for fairness! I believe this is exactly why people say people in this generation are so lousy and it’s because there are many people like you, who give up easily because there are too many obstacles. 5. “Therefore I say, for this re-prioritization, you first need to ask OAL why. Then we can try to justify it’s fair or not. (Though I don’t think there exists a fair system.)” Again. You yourself should also know the reason why they think so before you assume non-final-year students should have an advantage over final-year students. Final comment: I don’t know which year you are in but I just wanna tell you that I knew all these even when I was in my first year. And don’t distort any values. This is not justifiable for a university student to think like this. 回覆 CU ppl 2010 年 12 月 13 日 @student3 “Final year students who want exchange opportunities but do not get good results in early years simply fail. (But this point is not agreed in the article according to my understanding on it – the author holds the opinion that these students should be given a chance to go to exchange. Thus I make this point.) This is fair, isn’t it?” Yes! Exactly what I wanna ask. Why do you think final-year students should not be given a chance if they have made progress in the 2nd/ 3rd year? They have the same composite score as some 1st or 2nd students but they have much fewer choices. What’s the point? 回覆 student2 2010 年 12 月 13 日 @CU ppl It seems you are unclear of my point. My point is focusing on the comment on the criticism above, but not on the policy. I didn’t say the policy is good, but I focused on the wrong side of the comments made by the writer. And I said, because you and the writer complain about the policy change based on the fact that it is unfair, but not due to the reasons behind. All your points are based on your perceived understanding of fairness. In fact the topic of fairness is quite out of topic, for your information, check the four types of justice (procedural, distributive, restorative and retributive). That’s why I keep asking you what your definition about fairness is. It is very controversial and complicated to talk about fairness. The “fairness” problem is unable to solve I can say, BECAUSE there doesn’t exist “fair”! “And now let me tell you what I’ve heard. They did this because they think it’s weird for someone, whose final semester is not in CU, to graduate with a CUHK certificate. So what do you think?” A year-2 student may say, “Since after my exchange during year 2, I can come back to CUHK and contribute my experience to others during my remaining school life and apply the newly learnt knowledge in academic discussion, I am a better applicant than year-3 applicants.” A year-3 student may say, “I am a CUHK undergraduate, why can’t I enjoy the right to apply an exchange opportunity with others in the 1st round?” How to justify whether year-2 or year-3 students should be prioritized, or they should have equal chance? It’s not like a mathematical proof. The obstacles to fairness are just unable to be removed. Okay, and back to topic, about our arguments. I think we have gone too far to fairness. For the assumption of year-2 students having higher priority: You said I assume it is right, yes, why not? Then I can say you assume it is wrong. They are two different viewpoints which is difficult to judge which one is correct. Furthermore, “correct” is just socially constructed. Similar example: When there is unclear evidence about a case of crime, should you treat the suspect as innocent? In Hong Kong, yes; in the mainland, no. Assuming the action is right can give you more happiness, isn’t it? Smile! =] 回覆 熹 2010 年 12 月 15 日 抱歉未睇曬上面的討論就忍唔住快快手回左先。 其實我覺得student 的整個邏輯其實已經講得好清楚： 雖然exchange改制會對year 3 的同學不公平，但他覺得背後一定有原因。他在第一個comment 亦嘗試舉了一些例子，例如”is it becuz the credit wont be transfered, year 3 students treat it as a holiday before work?”，所以他認為中大學生報應該問清楚校方的意見，唔好誇大事實，為反對而反對。 簡單回應如下： 1)Student 你為什麼一口咬定作者無問到OAL 今次改制的原因？文中有寫得十分清楚該原因係「因為大學唔鼓勵學生extend去exchange」。該位置是特別括起，明顯是一個引述，當然可以話該引述指向不明，但始終唔係好明點解可以推論到作者無問到OAL 今次改制的原因？是因為你已經stereotype 了學生報，對他有成見：「I am shocked to see the above comment as well. I should say I absolutely agree with a professor I met, she said that this magazine always stands on the opposition side. for all the matters. (It seems the only thing I agree is the Liu Xiaobo matter)」 2)先回應一點，我們追求不到絕對的公平，跟我們是否追求公平是兩回事，請不要讓現況令自己犬儒起來。要討論今次改制是否合理最後一定要檢驗佢背後的理據是否合理，不是單純話相信校方背後一定有佢的原因就解答了。作者引述的原因：「大學唔鼓勵學生extend去exchange」，合理推論就是背後的行政工作量考慮。可以理解但不能接受。於是我們亦可以嘗試睇Student 自己估的原因”is it becuz the credit wont be transfered, year 3 students treat it as a holiday before work?”。最令我不解的是點解”extend to go overseas and extend after going overseas are different matter”，你理解兩者有甚麼大分別？虛心求教。如果是單純話Year 2 exchange 完回來可以contribute 中大，Year 3唔得。其實不過將貢獻中大定義得太窄。如果按此邏輯，難道不應是Year 1 first priority 嗎? p.s. 其實在此發生的討論是很有意義的，也許不需要這麼輕易就覺得other don’t change thir stance easily, 整個討論就meaningless. 畢竟可以明白不同的想法也是重要的。我好樂觀地想，沒有共識，不過是因為討論得不夠深入，而且某一些位置不太對嘴而已。 回覆 Leave a Reply to 熹 Cancel ReplyYour email address will not be published.CommentName* Email* Website 在瀏覽器中儲存顯示名稱、電子郵件地址及個人網站網址，以供下次發佈留言時使用。 一 − 一 = Δ
student 2010 年 12 月 9 日 extend to go overseas and extend after going overseas are different matter, you should ask why the OAL has this decision made. is it becuz the credit wont be transfered, year 3 students treat it as a holiday before work? i am not suggest this but i think you guys should try to find out b4 placing the school officials in the evil position. btw, i am offered a chance to go overseas in round 3, and there are still vacancy in colleges in the US, UK and some other places like sweden. although i hv always appreciated cusp for its nice work, do not try to exaggerate facts. 回覆
student2 2010 年 12 月 10 日 quota is limited, even if yr 3 students can enter 1st round, that means fewer yr 2 students can have the opportunity for exchange. Do you mean yr 2 students should argue then? OAL just re-prioritized the list. as the student above said, you should ask why OAL has this decision made. Furthermore, it is the problem of students of having poor GPA in the 1st year if they want to go to exchange in the 2nd year (Since quota is limited, competition must exist) or if you want to solve the whole problem, urge OAL for more exchange quota. This’s another matter. Don’t always say “objection” 回覆
student3 2010 年 12 月 10 日 “用Year1-2加埋Year3上學期衝晒D必修科同埋拉盡GPA” This is the first wrong assumption – kind of dirty tricks, therefore not a valid reason for going to exchange in year 3. “咁但係Year1考得唔好Year2報唔到，Year3夠分你又整色整水想攔住啲學生” This is the second wrong assumption – you assume that all students cannot get good results in their first two years, but there must be some students doing well; they are those students eligible for exchanges. Work harder if you want exchange opportunities. No pain no gain. 回覆
CU ppl 2010 年 12 月 12 日 I’m sorry but I am just GOBSMACKED by the ignorance of the above comments! I don’t think I even wanna bother to reply to all the points so I’ll just pick some to answer. 1. “btw, i am offered a chance to go overseas in round 3, and there are still vacancy in colleges in the US, UK and some other places like sweden.” oh yes! it’s true. But do you remember how many places are there in the 2nd/3rd round? and how many are there in the 1st round? COMPARE the figures yourself and think again whether it is fair to final year students! 2. “even if yr 3 students can enter 1st round, that means fewer yr 2 students can have the opportunity for exchange. Do you mean yr 2 students should argue then?” oh this is the most shocking point among all. You are ALREADY assuming year-2 students should have a higher priority to go on an exchange! What’s your rationale behind? 3. ““咁但係Year1考得唔好Year2報唔到，Year3夠分你又整色整水想攔住啲學生” This is the second wrong assumption – you assume that all students cannot get good results in their first two years, but there must be some students doing well; they are those students eligible for exchanges.” I don’t know whether there are any difficulties for you to read Chinese (though it’s funny that your English is poor as well). From where can you deduce the writer is “assuming ALL students cannot get good results in their first two years”? What I understand is that the writer is just saying “there are cases like this”, which means there are SOME people like this, not all. All in all, I totally object to this change of policy and the reason is that they are OBVIOUSLY discriminating against final-year students! Sorry I don’t mean to offend anyone but I’m so shocked because I can’t believe these all comments were supposedly written by university students, let alone they are from CUHK. 回覆
student2 2010 年 12 月 12 日 “oh this is the most shocking point among all. You are ALREADY assuming year-2 students should have a higher priority to go on an exchange! What’s your rationale behind?” This assumption is made because of OAL, therefore I said we need to ask OAL why. I believe every departments make their decision carefully, they must have reasons to support their actions. In this point, I assume year-2 students should have a higher priority. But you and the writer just oppose by saying “unfairness” without knowing the reasons behind. I should say it is always unfair in CUHK (what do you think by “fair”?), the best example is the course registration system. High-year students have higher priority during the course registration for a long time. It is definitely unfair, isn’t it? But those lower year students have never argued for the higher priority. Because they understand the need for high-year students to register the courses first, in order to meet the requirements. There are in fact far more unfairness existing in CUHK. Different professors give different grade distributions, different faculties and departments can have some bonus marks added for their exchange score, etc. They are just the facts that we accepted, but it doesn’t mean it is fair. Because of this change, you object it. However both the writer and your stand on the opposition side because of unfairness. It just doesn’t make sense. It shows that some people are just standing on the opposition side just because there are changes. Therefore I say, for this re-prioritization, you first need to ask OAL why. Then we can try to justify it’s fair or not. (Though I don’t think there exists a fair system.) I am shocked to see the above comment as well. I should say I absolutely agree with a professor I met, she said that this magazine always stands on the opposition side. for all the matters. (It seems the only thing I agree is the Liu Xiaobo matter) 回覆
student3 2010 年 12 月 13 日 @CU ppl From where can you deduce the writer is “assuming ALL students cannot get good results in their first two years”? What I understand is that the writer is just saying “there are cases like this”, which means there are SOME people like this, not all. ———————————————— It means you understand this point as well! You agree that some people can get good results; therefore I state that these people can have exchange opportunities. There is no problem after all. Final year students who want exchange opportunities but do not get good results in early years simply fail. (But this point is not agreed in the article according to my understanding on it – the author holds the opinion that these students should be given a chance to go to exchange. Thus I make this point.) This is fair, isn’t it? And I am not going to argue anymore on this article because I find it meaningless and I believe people do not change their stances easily, especially when they hold a strong opinion on the matter. 回覆
CU ppl 2010 年 12 月 13 日 You are even more interesting now. I am not sure whether it’s your problem of expressing your views in English or it is really what you think. What you said is just not logical. 1. “his assumption is made because of OAL, therefore I said we need to ask OAL why. I believe every departments make their decision carefully, they must have reasons to support their actions. In this point, I assume year-2 students should have a higher priority. But you and the writer just oppose by saying “unfairness” without knowing the reasons behind.” You don’t know their rationale behind and then you just TOO SIMPLY assume that they are right because they should have some certain reason for what they have decided. Isn’t it very funny? Is this even “thinking”? Is this even how a university student’s mind should process? You are just following the herd! You don’t even know what their rationale is before you agree with them. See my point? I believe everyone, especially university students, should have some critical thinking themselves, instead of agreeing on something even without knowing what’s going on! And now let me tell you what I’ve heard. They did this because they think it’s weird for someone, whose final semester is not in CU, to graduate with a CUHK certificate. So what do you think? 2. “the best example is the course registration system. High-year students have higher priority during the course registration for a long time. It is definitely unfair, isn’t it? But those lower year students have never argued for the higher priority. Because they understand the need for high-year students to register the courses first, in order to meet the requirements.” GOBSMACKED. Do you even know what you are saying? You said you KNOW they did this because senior-year students have to graduate soon and therefore they need to fulfill their requirements more urgently. YES! This is exactly why they are doing so. Final-year students must take some core courses asap because there might be only just 1 or 2 semesters to go or else they can’t graduate. Their need is more urgent than first-year or second-year students, who AT LEAST have 3 semesters or more to go. What’s wrong to serve people whose need is greater and much more urgent? Got my point? If not, let me give you some examples. If what you are saying is right, then there shouldn’t be any lifts in MTR stations, which are tailored mainly for handicapped people, because they give the handicapped ones a privilege. There also should not be any children seats at McDonald’s because this is tailored for one group of people only. But hey they just have greater needs! If there is nothing to facilitate them, this is what we call “UNFAIR”. See it? You are DISTORTING how we should look at things! 3. “There are in fact far more unfairness existing in CUHK. Different professors give different grade distributions, different faculties and departments can have some bonus marks added for their exchange score, etc. They are just the facts that we accepted, but it doesn’t mean it is fair.” Yes, there isn’t any solution for the grade distribution problem. We have different courses, different professors and different assessments. We can solve this only if we are all handled by one professor/organisation. This is inevitable here but is totally avoidable when it comes to the exchange matters, which are all handled by OAL, which is a SINGLE organisation. And do you even know WHY they have some bonus points for some departments? If no, then try to find out why. If yes, my explanation would be the same as 2. 4. “Because of this change, you object it. However both the writer and your stand on the opposition side because of unfairness. It just doesn’t make sense.” What? Because there is unfairness in many aspects so it does not make sense if we ask for fairness? Can’t you be even more pessimistic and funnier? It’s that we SHOULD try harder to kick out all the unfairness and and gradually make the whole society more fair to everyone. It’s not because there is a lot of unfairness and then we should not ask for fairness! I believe this is exactly why people say people in this generation are so lousy and it’s because there are many people like you, who give up easily because there are too many obstacles. 5. “Therefore I say, for this re-prioritization, you first need to ask OAL why. Then we can try to justify it’s fair or not. (Though I don’t think there exists a fair system.)” Again. You yourself should also know the reason why they think so before you assume non-final-year students should have an advantage over final-year students. Final comment: I don’t know which year you are in but I just wanna tell you that I knew all these even when I was in my first year. And don’t distort any values. This is not justifiable for a university student to think like this. 回覆
CU ppl 2010 年 12 月 13 日 @student3 “Final year students who want exchange opportunities but do not get good results in early years simply fail. (But this point is not agreed in the article according to my understanding on it – the author holds the opinion that these students should be given a chance to go to exchange. Thus I make this point.) This is fair, isn’t it?” Yes! Exactly what I wanna ask. Why do you think final-year students should not be given a chance if they have made progress in the 2nd/ 3rd year? They have the same composite score as some 1st or 2nd students but they have much fewer choices. What’s the point? 回覆
student2 2010 年 12 月 13 日 @CU ppl It seems you are unclear of my point. My point is focusing on the comment on the criticism above, but not on the policy. I didn’t say the policy is good, but I focused on the wrong side of the comments made by the writer. And I said, because you and the writer complain about the policy change based on the fact that it is unfair, but not due to the reasons behind. All your points are based on your perceived understanding of fairness. In fact the topic of fairness is quite out of topic, for your information, check the four types of justice (procedural, distributive, restorative and retributive). That’s why I keep asking you what your definition about fairness is. It is very controversial and complicated to talk about fairness. The “fairness” problem is unable to solve I can say, BECAUSE there doesn’t exist “fair”! “And now let me tell you what I’ve heard. They did this because they think it’s weird for someone, whose final semester is not in CU, to graduate with a CUHK certificate. So what do you think?” A year-2 student may say, “Since after my exchange during year 2, I can come back to CUHK and contribute my experience to others during my remaining school life and apply the newly learnt knowledge in academic discussion, I am a better applicant than year-3 applicants.” A year-3 student may say, “I am a CUHK undergraduate, why can’t I enjoy the right to apply an exchange opportunity with others in the 1st round?” How to justify whether year-2 or year-3 students should be prioritized, or they should have equal chance? It’s not like a mathematical proof. The obstacles to fairness are just unable to be removed. Okay, and back to topic, about our arguments. I think we have gone too far to fairness. For the assumption of year-2 students having higher priority: You said I assume it is right, yes, why not? Then I can say you assume it is wrong. They are two different viewpoints which is difficult to judge which one is correct. Furthermore, “correct” is just socially constructed. Similar example: When there is unclear evidence about a case of crime, should you treat the suspect as innocent? In Hong Kong, yes; in the mainland, no. Assuming the action is right can give you more happiness, isn’t it? Smile! =] 回覆
熹 2010 年 12 月 15 日 抱歉未睇曬上面的討論就忍唔住快快手回左先。 其實我覺得student 的整個邏輯其實已經講得好清楚： 雖然exchange改制會對year 3 的同學不公平，但他覺得背後一定有原因。他在第一個comment 亦嘗試舉了一些例子，例如”is it becuz the credit wont be transfered, year 3 students treat it as a holiday before work?”，所以他認為中大學生報應該問清楚校方的意見，唔好誇大事實，為反對而反對。 簡單回應如下： 1)Student 你為什麼一口咬定作者無問到OAL 今次改制的原因？文中有寫得十分清楚該原因係「因為大學唔鼓勵學生extend去exchange」。該位置是特別括起，明顯是一個引述，當然可以話該引述指向不明，但始終唔係好明點解可以推論到作者無問到OAL 今次改制的原因？是因為你已經stereotype 了學生報，對他有成見：「I am shocked to see the above comment as well. I should say I absolutely agree with a professor I met, she said that this magazine always stands on the opposition side. for all the matters. (It seems the only thing I agree is the Liu Xiaobo matter)」 2)先回應一點，我們追求不到絕對的公平，跟我們是否追求公平是兩回事，請不要讓現況令自己犬儒起來。要討論今次改制是否合理最後一定要檢驗佢背後的理據是否合理，不是單純話相信校方背後一定有佢的原因就解答了。作者引述的原因：「大學唔鼓勵學生extend去exchange」，合理推論就是背後的行政工作量考慮。可以理解但不能接受。於是我們亦可以嘗試睇Student 自己估的原因”is it becuz the credit wont be transfered, year 3 students treat it as a holiday before work?”。最令我不解的是點解”extend to go overseas and extend after going overseas are different matter”，你理解兩者有甚麼大分別？虛心求教。如果是單純話Year 2 exchange 完回來可以contribute 中大，Year 3唔得。其實不過將貢獻中大定義得太窄。如果按此邏輯，難道不應是Year 1 first priority 嗎? p.s. 其實在此發生的討論是很有意義的，也許不需要這麼輕易就覺得other don’t change thir stance easily, 整個討論就meaningless. 畢竟可以明白不同的想法也是重要的。我好樂觀地想，沒有共識，不過是因為討論得不夠深入，而且某一些位置不太對嘴而已。 回覆
