讨论:培侨书院
Untitled
但自从校长的更替,以上校规已不复存在。 → Quoted from members with highly knowledge of the subject: Low occurring frequency does not necessarily mean the slogan is "不复存在".
而现届校长主张开源节流，尽可能节省资源。 → Evidence missing.
并推举强制学习及填鸭式的传统教学，认为只有成绩优异的 才是好学生，不接受亦不培训拥有其他技能及长处；(如；音乐、艺术等)的学生。反而劝勉他们转校，以往不少在培侨就读的"多元"学生已转到其他学校(如； 体艺，创意、庄启程等拥有特色的学校)。 → The subject of this sentence is omitted. It is generally assumed as "现届校长", which makes this sentence an accusation. Also, this statement lacks a reliable source.
本校新一届的校虽算不上是一位很好，很负责的教育人，但他的确是一位很出色的生意人。虽然他对本校政策十问九不 知，但本校有一位负责任的副校长为他打理日常事务。若论及培侨的前景，本校的学生、老师、甚至校长大概也无法推测。 → The NEUTRALITY is heavily biased.
若要评论培侨书院的选修课程，"不文不理不商不专"是最好的形容。培侨书院并无BAFS(Business, Accounting and Financial Studies)而只有一课ECON,教材不咸不淡，并不能真正有效助学生将来修读商科；而文科方面，本校并无开设中、英国文学给予本年度(2012-2013)的G11学生选读，因为当时人数不足及该届学生资质平均较差，本校决定放弃该届学生。同时，当大家以为本校欲专于理科时，非然。本校无意培训理科精英。修读理科的学生一般必须加修M1，但本校并无开设该课。本校的理科老师普遍认同，资质不足的学生较适宜放弃继续修读该科，而非努力尝试不设实际的假想或"目标"。其他选修科的老师亦一样，一般没有教学热诚，以往本校的老师必抱负着满腔热诚。但今天的培侨书院已物是人非。 → 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.
因为会浪费师资。 → A source must be attached for verification.
针对学生的自制能力不足而进行惩罚。 → A source must be attached for verification.
让学生明白自已的资质所限及短处而避开该处。 → This is highly doubtful. "资质所限" is a relatively negative statement. I doubt the school would devalue the ability of students.
而走廊的名字则为河流，例如亚马逊河（Amazon River）和尼罗河（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.