Talk:Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination

GCSE
There is no A* in British GCE A level until 2011.

Frequent deletion of sections - may involve POV
Parts of the article on the Chinese Language and Culture exam have been deleted thrice, one by the unknown user User:203.218.150.92 and two by User:Mcy_jerry, all within seven days.

Of them, only Mcy_jerry left a brief message on User_talk:Carlsmith by stating parts of the section as "meaningless", "gramma[tically]... [un]satisfactory", and confusing.

I am looking forward for the detailed and substantiated reasoning from these two and other users who would edit the article in such way. Please leave your opinions below. If further deletion is made without discussions, I might consider reporting to the administrators for protecting the page from further edits.

Carlsmith 04:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Apology and counter-arguments
First I would like to apologise for my unintented deletion of your work without appropriate notifications. I don't mean it, to be frank, and don't realise it could be regarded as an act of vandalism in your book. Hope you can accept my apology with my deepest regrets.

Here, I'm writing to give my arguements:

From 2001 onwards
In your passage, you have written:

''>>From 2001 onwards, the HKEAA has been engaged in rapid changes in the format of the exam. These changes include the replacement of questions on prescribed texts with open-ended questions in the paper of cultural understanding. By doing so, the HKEAA attempts to prevent candidates from rote-memorising the mandated reading materials.''

But how could you tell such revamps have been in progess since 2001? No apparent evidence has backed up your points; assuming that your points are valid somehow, from what channels make you realise that those changes carried out by HKEAA is to "prevent candidates from rote-memorising the mandated reading materials?"

My suggestion:
 * Quote certain markers' reports to support your view.
 * Contact the Chinese Language Department of HKEAA and ask for their ideas. Most importantly, try to clarify whether they have the exact same purpose (i.e. desist sheer memorization) to the so-called "paper revamp" as you have mentioned.

Saliva-pouring
>>Such move, however, was criticised by some candidates as a move towards "saliva-pouring" (&#21475;&#27700;&#31185;), by which candidates would answer in a way so as to appease markers.


 * Here I like you to show your source for the critics above-mentioned.

>>(For more information on the definition of "saliva-pouring", refer to "Tong shi, tong shi" (http://library.polyu.edu.hk/search/t{215c28}{21593c}/t11{215c28}19{21593c}/1%2C5%2C5%2CB/frameset&FF=t11{215c28}19{21593c}+11{215c28}19{21593c}&1%2C1%2C), the 12 February 2005 episode of News Magazine, produced by Television Broadcasts Limited, Hong Kong)


 * This is a detailed yet unsuitable quote of source, which is produced in a non-English language; and it is no written information that provdies s clear explanation as well but a empty library record--this is what I mean for "meaningless"--other users can never know the true meaning of your special term, and CarlSmith was as if trying his/her best to persuade others to fly to Hong Kong and borrow that DVD from an unfamiliar university. Furthermore, his page is included in part of the English verion of Wikipedia. The term has a immense tint of local slangs, and English users from other countries may NOT appreciate the meaning. Please write your definition of "Saliva-pouring" precisely and concisely. Otherwise, the following template messages may be considered to implement:

cleanup-technical

notenglish


 * Moreover, the quoted source above is only refering to liberal studies, instead of the definition of "saliva-pouring". Stangely enough, yet possibly to a greater extent, some users would think Hong Kong students use their saliva to handle their liberal studies assignment.


 * "to appease markers" seems to be biased on the surface. In a sense, you have to "appease" markers in every test in order to score high marks.

Paper revamp
>>>''In 2005, the format of paper 1B (reading comprehension) was changed from speed reading of various articles to fine reading of only three articles, without prior notice. The move stirred up protests from some candidates, some of whom played on the phrase "stirring, brewing, squeezing (http://mathsking.net/fun/2005clc.htm)" (&#25898;&#20999;&#25662;) which came up on one of the articles, Being Middle Age is Afternoon Tea (http://www.ylib.com/author/don/article.htm) (&#20013;&#24180;&#26159;&#19979;&#21320;&#33590;) by Tung Ch'iao (&#33891;&#27211;). The HKEAA reiterated its stance that there has not ever been a "specific" format for the exam, thus, insisted there was nothing wrong with the paper. An article with the title of the pun appeared briefly on Chinese Wikipedia, and swiftly removed by administrators after holding a vote (http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E5%88%A0%E9%99%A4%E6%8A%95%E7%A5%A8%E5%92%8C%E8%AF%B7%E6%B1%82/4%E6%9C%8812%E6%97%A5).''

If my memory serves me, there was NOT ONLY ONE paper revamp apart from what you have mentioned. There was a time the HKEAA changed the format of the comprehension test into speed reading from the original 2-piece reading. Again, NO candidates were previouisly alarmed to such "drastic" change. So why only the change in 2005 was recorded in your case? Don't they carry the same significance? Or should the latter one be of greater importance? Test formats are fluctuating from time to time, and that is the fact; seemingly, there are no two identical papers from different examination years. Please show your reason why only such "change" you have mentioned is worth being recorded. If no reasonable justification is provided, I may consider the following template message: explain significance

No solid evidence has shown that a number of (in your case, some) candidates are parodying a particular phrase from a comprehension article. Your one and only one external link to an unknown private website could be a fraud with respect to the whole scheme of thing--especially when people read the word "fun" in the external link's URL, offering not the slightest accuracy to the users. To compund matters, the concerned article you have quoted in the passage is not the exact same verion of the test paper. The latter one is designately abridged for accessing purposes.

Conclusion
I'm not asking the user CarlSmith to delete the controversial contents on impulse, but I sincerely hope that this user can reconsider the fidelity and reliability of his/her works. After all, what we want to put into the Wikipedia should be unbiased, dependable, and 100% factually correct. On the other hand, arguably, CarlSmith should give out appropriate explanation to his part of writing as well, otherwise that TOO could be a "vandalism" as he/she mentioned.--Mcy jerry 08:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Apology and counter-arguments
First of all I really appreciate Mcy_jerry's spirit of improving Wikipedia into a flawless encyclopedia, an act applaudable by all wikipedians.

Improvements

In the mean time, I agree improvements on the article needs to be done, but it, as you may have done for all the time on Wikipedia, can seldomly done overnight.

Putting the same templates all over the page is not the normal practice of Wikipedia, as you should know.

Thus, I am adding two templates, simple yet informational, allowing further expansion of the article.

Verifiability of Chinese Media

For all the time we have have spent on Wikipedia, we all should realize that Wikipedia is a global collaboration project.

True, this is the English version of Wikipedia, and all should be done to ensure accessibility of English readers if possible. But there are times when the English sources on the items just isn't available, such as the U-beat magazine article cited in Happy Corner. Would you suggest that the U-beat magazine is unreliable just becuase it's in Chinese? Would you suggest that sources like Le Figaro, Le Monde, or small hometown newspapers like Newsday should not be cited to comfort to your standards?

An article without these criticisms and the "twist and turns" would be 100% accurate, but that leaves no room for other opinions that may be included comforming to NPOV. An article that is merely descriptive and officious like a bureaucratic document is of little use to Wikipedia.

Not vandalism
So unfornate to tell you that, Mr Carl Simth, the deletion act of mine should not be considered as vandalism, as the official page has clearly clarified.

''NPOV violations The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all blinded by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. While regrettable, this is not vandalism. See also: NPOV dispute.''

Of course I'm meaning to is not to tease you to protect the page for a temporary period; this is your right, after all. But what I wnat to accentuate is reaching a considerate consensus. Write again later. --Mcy jerry 13:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Better-sweet
I was siting before the monitor all day long, yearning to see the reply of Mr Carl Smith. Certainly it was the happiest moment when I read a reply from Mr Smith, one of the most endeavour wikipedians that I have ever seen. But when carefully scrutinise every line, every word of the belated response, my heart sank all of a sudden. Feeling terribly dismayed, what I leart from the feedback was that Mr Smith was a laconic but careless person. He simply did not read my arguements with heart, mixed up certain concepts that I have made. Obviously we need a sincere process of give and take so as to perfect the information in dispute. Mr Simth did give his opinions for consideration, and yet "subconsciously" pooh-pooh my point of view.

Here, I once again re-typed my arguements in a MORE clear approach. Hope Mr Simth can really spend a minute or half to scan through this reply, rather than barking up the wrong tree for his next reply.

Chinese webpage reliable, said I; undependable, said you
First, I did not say the Chinese webpage you have provided is of little, or rather, no avail, not I doubted the reliabilty of the related article (In fact, I like to watch News Magazine of TVB. A nice programme indeed; the unreliable thing is the website that you later stated). What I'd like to point out, yet unluckily ignored and misunderstood, was the page you were providing was a library item entity page, which apparently gives no clue to most users what "saliva-pouring" is, i.e. a lack of concise definition.

In your cited example Happy Corner, the illustrate item was a de facto common culture both in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and the original editor has clarfied the meaning of the school prank to avoid ambiguity. Similarly, "Saliva-pouring" was a Hong Kong slang, likewise a buzzword, and certainly not all English users can fully undertand what Mr Smith was saying; on the other hand, instead of give a clear picture of "how the saliva is poured in the test", he was as if trying his best to persuade others to fly to Hong Kong and borrow that DVD from an unfamiliar university which is absolutely impractical. That's why I have out a template as follows: confusing and technical

EVEN MORE ABSURD was that the Chinese website, which was actually talking about LIBERAL STUDIES, instead of THE DEFINTION OF SALIVA-POURING. How come a user can under "Saliva-pouring" in that totally irrelavent webpage.

Another thing that I consider as biased was "to appease markers". In a sense, you ALWAYS have to "appease" markers, to "appease" marking schemes, to "appease" the examination authority in every test in order to score high marks. So if the act of appeasing and "Saliva-pouring" imply an equal sign, then why use a buzzword?

2001? Where's the source?
In your passage, you have written:

>>''From 2001 onwards, the HKEAA has been engaged in rapid changes in the format of the exam. These changes include the replacement of questions on prescribed texts with open-ended questions in the paper of cultural understanding. By doing so, the HKEAA attempts to prevent candidates from rote-memorising the mandated reading materials.''

But how could you tell such revamps have been in progess since 2001? No apparent evidence has backed up your points; assuming that your points are valid somehow, from what channels make you realise that those changes carried out by HKEAA is to "prevent candidates from rote-memorising the mandated reading materials"? Or did Fung Lok Tak, the chairman of the Chinese Language Department of HKEAA, mention it before?

In a word, where's your source?

My suggestion:


 * Quote certain markers' reports to support your view.
 * Contact the Chinese Language Department of HKEAA and ask for their ideas. Most importantly, try to clarify whether they have the exact same purpose (i.e. desist sheer memorization) to the so-called "paper revamp" as you have mentioned.

Paper revamp-biased
>>>In 2005, the format of paper 1B (reading comprehension) was changed from speed reading of various articles to fine reading of only three articles, without prior notice. The move stirred up protests from some candidates, some of whom played on the phrase "stirring, brewing, squeezing (http://mathsking.net/fun/2005clc.htm)" (&#25898;&#20999;&#25662;) which came up on one of the articles, Being Middle Age is Afternoon Tea (http://www.ylib.com/author/don/article.htm) (&#20013;&#24180;&#26159;&#19979;&#21320;&#33590;) by Tung Ch'iao (&#33891;&#27211;). The HKEAA reiterated its stance that there has not ever been a "specific" format for the exam, thus, insisted there was nothing wrong with the paper. An article with the title of the pun appeared briefly on Chinese Wikipedia, and swiftly removed by administrators after holding a vote (http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E5%88%A0%E9%99%A4%E6%8A%95%E7%A5%A8%E5%92%8C%E8%AF%B7%E6%B1%82/4%E6%9C%8812%E6%97%A5).

If my memory serves me, there was NOT ONLY ONE paper revamp apart from what you have mentioned. There was a time the HKEAA changed the format of the comprehension test into speed reading from the original 2-piece reading. Again, NO candidates were previouisly alarmed to such "drastic" change. So why only the change in 2005 was recorded in your case? Don't they carry the same significance? Or should the latter one be of greater importance? Test formats are fluctuating from time to time, and that is the fact; seemingly, there are no two identical papers from different examination years. Please show your reason why only such "change" you have mentioned is worth being recorded. If no reasonable justification is provided, I may consider the following template message:

No solid evidence has shown that a number of (in your case, some) candidates are parodying a particular phrase from a comprehension article. Your one and only one external link to an unknown private website could be a fraud with respect to the whole scheme of thing--especially when people read the word "FUN" in the external link's URL, offering not the slightest accuracy to the users. ITo compund matters, the concerned article you have quoted in the passage is not the exact same verion of the test paper. The latter one is designately abridged for accessing purposes.--Mcy jerry 15:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Not vandalism, Better sweet, etc, etc.
It seems like that you do know a lot about the subject. Bravo (Don't be modest). Wouldn't it be wonderful for you find data on previous revamps and detailed contents on the exam for the article, as they still linger in your memory? Afterall, Wikipedia is about collaboration, about giving the full view of a paticular subject.

As you do recall the events in detail, you may as well write about them. Why should you prohibit them from coming out?

You may as well better define the term "Better sweet", given your viewpoint. You should also refrain from the use of all caps of some words, given your vast knowledge of Wikiquette and netiquette, as well as other personal statements to be best avoided at all cost.

--Carlsmith 22:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Another turn-back
Just want to sigh that Mr Carl Smith still did not answer my questions--where's the source, the definition, and the reliability. After all, I'm just, with luck, pleading for a concise clarification upon certain unclear points of view. Later you even taught me about "table manner". (Well, I didn't say you're better than me, mind you. :) ) In fact, I was praising you when I looked at your writing, which was written only in few words that you can count by hand, so I called you "laconic". Yet, I was rather disppointed when you didn't answer my question, and, even worse, mixed up my ideas. That's the "careless" reader I'd lke to define. Similar, my "better-sweet" (sic)(the correct spelling should be "bitter-sweet" that I wanted to say) feelings came along with such unhappy dismay.

I'm afraid you're misunderstanding certain English idioms as well. "Barking up the wrong tree" refer to "being "mistaken about something", and it has not got the slightest tint of offence and derogation. No personal attack was delibrately made by me and, unfortunately, someone was just too paranoid and touchy with words, thinking about conspiracies every now and then.

Yearning for more improvement
So you didn't quote the source. No definition of "saliva-pouring" but linking to an empty library page talking about "liberal studies". No evidence revealing the paper revamp since 2001. No evidence showing that "[the paper revamp] was HKEAA's attempt to prevent candidates from rote-memorising the mandated reading materials" (It could be "encouraging critical thinking" as in other case, so had better to clarfy this). No evidence supporting the reliabilty of the contents of the "Mathsking" "fun" website, which can be simply regarded as self-promotion of a unknown personal website, a kind of vandalism in Wikiepedia.

A quoting question
I wonder the article in the exam contained the following contents:

&#20013;&#24180;&#26159;&#21361;&#38570;&#30340;&#24180;&#40801;&#65306;&#19981;&#26159;&#33126;&#23376;&#22826;&#24537;&#12289;&#31934;&#23376;&#22826;&#38290;&#65307;&#23601;&#26159;&#31934;&#23376;&#22826;&#24537;&#12289;&#33126;&#23376;&#22826;&#38290;&#12290;&#20013;&#24180;&#26159;&#19968;&#27425;&#27627;&#28961;&#26399;&#24453;&#24515;&#24773;&#30340;&#32004;&#26371;&#65306;&#20320;&#20358;&#20102;&#20063;&#22909;&#65292;&#26368;&#22909;&#20320;&#19981;&#20358;&#65281;&#20013;&#24180;&#30340;&#25925;&#20107;&#26159;&#37027;&#38587;&#25778;&#31354;&#30340;&#31934;&#23376;&#30340;&#25925;&#20107;&#65306;&#37027;&#38587;&#31934;&#23376;&#26085;&#22812;&#22312;&#31934;&#22218;&#35023;&#36339;&#36339;&#36454;&#36454;&#37723;&#37706;&#36523;&#39636;&#65292;&#35498;&#26159;&#23559;&#20358;&#22909;&#25654;&#20808;&#32080;&#25104;&#20581;&#24247;&#30340;&#32982;&#23043;&#23043;&#65307;&#26377;&#19968;&#22825;&#65292;&#31934;&#22218;&#35023;&#19968;&#38499;&#28414;&#29105;&#65292;&#21315;&#33836;&#38587;&#31934;&#23376;&#29229;&#20808;&#24656;&#24460;&#24448;&#38296;&#21475;&#22868;&#36942;&#21435;&#65292;&#31361;&#28982;&#38291;&#65292;&#25654;&#22312;&#21069;&#38957;&#30340;&#37027;&#38587;&#22767;&#31934;&#23376;&#36681;&#36523;&#24448;&#22238;&#36305;&#65292;&#22823;&#23478;&#33707;&#21517;&#20854;&#22937;&#21839;&#20182;&#24185;&#22043;&#19981;&#25654;&#33879;&#21435;&#25237;&#32974;&#65311;&#37027;&#38587;&#22767;&#31934;&#23376;&#21912;&#33879;&#27683;&#35498;&#65306;&#12300;&#25654;&#20491;&#23617;&#65281;&#20182;&#22312;&#33258;&#28678;&#65281;&#12301;

So I recommend you should add "extracted" or "abridged" beside the title if that's true. Otherwise, please ignore this part.

Good job
I'm so happy, though, that you have deleted some controversial yet confusing part about the word-play, e.g. the Vote for deletion and "to appease examiners". I appreciate your understanding of the importance of supporting evidence. The sentence "The move stirred up much controversy from some candidates, some of whom hysterically teased the words "stirring, brewing, squeezing" (&#25898;&#20999;&#25662;) which featured ..." is even more objective and unbiased than the original version.

Can't materialise my thought
Yes, as you've mentioned, I do know lots of the revolution in the HKEAA (and why should I be "modest"? :) ). Yet, what a shame is that I don't have the related evidence to support my stance, so as to avoid controversy. It's certainly no fun when I start my article "a little bird told me that..." (this is an idiom) so I can't materialise my thought into Wikipedia.

Finally, thanks for giving me a valuable lesson on "table manner". Yet, I wasn't born yesterday (this is an idiom), and I know how to saw my steak--so please don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs. (this is an idiom too) Anway, please continue with your job, and I shall keep an eye on your work.

Another big hand to Carl Smith
So pleased to see that Carl Smith has been so dedicted in further improvement. I must say that the controversy is "legally dead" to me! You may remove the dispute template next time, Carl. Again, please applause to our laborious contributor. --Jerry Crimson Mann 15:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Translation on "Being Middle Aged is Afternoon Tea"
I think "Middle age is tea-time" is more appropriate.

According to Oxford Advanced Learners' Dictionary (4th Edition): Period shoud be equvalent to time in this case. And afternoon tea means tea which is taken in the afternoon.
 * Middle age is a period between youth and old age.
 * Tea-time is a time at or duing which tea is taken in the afternoon.

Pure Mathematics
This part should majorly include how candidates' knowledge of this subject is assessed in the paper, which lacks in the present data field. Moreover, an anon. has only vaguely stated that the format of the paper had been changed since 2004, without any further, yet crucial, elaboration. There is doubt, too, that whether the question about curve sketching was particularly difficult in the paper of 2005; the correspondant results have not been released yet, let alone the markers' report. So much of the viewpoint is much too subjective at the moment, for example:


 * In 2005, the exam paper is much worse than 2004...

The statement above is somehow too "personal", and certainly does not fit the requirement of being objective.

Unfortunately, this maths paper is downright beyong my ken. So what I can do is only to delete this sections within days if no improvement of the contents is seen.

Jerry Crimson Mann 15:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Syllabuses
Should we include the syllabuses of the subjects here? Thomas621 10:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The plural of "syllabus" is not "syllabuses", it is "syllabi". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.153.6.193 (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Check your Oxford dictionary. Both are fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.251.250 (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

A few points
"The low percentage of grade A students in UE may indicate that Hong Kong lacks students who are truly proficient in English."

I think putting this stuff into "controversy" requires a comparison with, say, GCE French AL in Britain, instead of a proper and internationalized English proficiency test. Perhaps we shall take it back to the UE section?

Dichen (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: But it's a line-curve system. the % of As is artificially fixed.