討論:培僑書院
Untitled
但自從校長的更替,以上校規已不復存在。 → Quoted from members with highly knowledge of the subject: Low occurring frequency does not necessarily mean the slogan is "不復存在".
而現屆校長主張開源節流，盡可能節省資源。 → Evidence missing.
並推舉強制學習及填鴨式的傳統教學，認為只有成績優異的 才是好學生，不接受亦不培訓擁有其他技能及長處；(如；音樂、藝術等)的學生。反而勸勉他們轉校，以往不少在培僑就讀的"多元"學生已轉到其他學校(如； 體藝，創意、莊啟程等擁有特色的學校)。 → The subject of this sentence is omitted. It is generally assumed as "現屆校長", which makes this sentence an accusation. Also, this statement lacks a reliable source.
本校新一屆的校雖算不上是一位很好，很負責的教育人，但他的確是一位很出色的生意人。雖然他對本校政策十問九不 知，但本校有一位負責任的副校長為他打理日常事務。若論及培僑的前景，本校的學生、老師、甚至校長大概也無法推測。 → The NEUTRALITY is heavily biased.
若要評論培僑書院的選修課程，"不文不理不商不專"是最好的形容。培僑書院並無BAFS(Business, Accounting and Financial Studies)而只有一課ECON,教材不咸不淡，並不能真正有效助學生將來修讀商科；而文科方面，本校並無開設中、英國文學給予本年度(2012-2013)的G11學生選讀，因為當時人數不足及該屆學生資質平均較差，本校決定放棄該屆學生。同時，當大家以為本校欲專於理科時，非然。本校無意培訓理科精英。修讀理科的學生一般必須加修M1，但本校並無開設該課。本校的理科老師普遍認同，資質不足的學生較適宜放棄繼續修讀該科，而非努力嘗試不設實際的假想或"目標"。其他選修科的老師亦一樣，一般沒有教學熱誠，以往本校的老師必抱負着滿腔熱誠。但今天的培僑書院已物是人非。 → The bold text shows an immense bias of neutrality and allegation without proof. In general, these are all third-party speculations on the school and to some extent, the author of these changes prefers the 'past' school than the 'present' school, as shown in the last sentence. Additionally, notice how the author refers to the school using "本校". "本校" implies a first-person view. This has led me to believe the content is written by the members of the school. Of course, this is only my assumption and may not be exactly the truth. However, a constant expansion of these partisan statements may be a result of hoax. What is absolutely certain is that the neutrality of this article is lost.
因為會浪費師資。 → A source must be attached for verification.
針對學生的自制能力不足而進行懲罰。 → A source must be attached for verification.
讓學生明白自已的資質所限及短處而避開該處。 → This is highly doubtful. "資質所限" is a relatively negative statement. I doubt the school would devalue the ability of students.
而走廊的名字則為河流，例如亞馬遜河（Amazon River）和尼羅河（River Nile）。 → A source must be attached for verification.
Written source are recommended.
And to those who edit this article only to express their discontent in the subject: Wikipedia is a knowledge resource for the members of the public. Writing your personal views on the matter is an act of deception to those who have no knowledge of the subject.