bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

sponsorType

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

factSheets

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

copyrighted

customTimezone

liveContents

Oliver Kwan

Pulcheria Chung

Pulcheria Chung, 18 St Mary's Canossian College

As one of the victims of the  present system, I   feel that the leap from the HKCEE to the A-Levels is too  much. The syllabus, workload and  difficulty level triples.

How can students adapt to such a huge jump in just 15 months? It is impossible.

It is also not fair that whether we  get a place in university or not depends on the results  of only one exam. The system needs to be changed.

There are some feasibility problems with the 3+3+4 system, such as  making liberal studies a compulsory subject, I agree with the  general  concept of the system.

The new system stresses  school-based assessment,  which can  provide a more comprehensive  measurement of students' abilities and talents. This will reduce  pressure from exams.

Education is a gradual process of self-development. It paves  the way for our future.

The 3+3+4 system is much more flexible than the present system, which is characterised by sudden leaps as students move from one level to the next.

Oliver Kwan, 17 Delia School of Canada

I am  enrolled in a school with a system very similar to the 3+3+4,  and I think it is a great system.

Classes are flexible, the courses are suitable for us and we can manage our workload.

But despite all this, I don't think the 3+3+4 system is   a good idea for Hong Kong students.

Similar systems do not place enough   emphasis on knowledge.  Knowledge is an important part of the system,  but the focus is on  analytical  skills.

The 3+3+4 system is meant  for a  modern and  liberal curriculum - a stark contrast to the current one. There is a strong  consensus  for implementing the   3+3+4 with   the current curriculum.

How can a system designed to promote free thinking and critical analysis work  with courses that

focus  on something else?

For the 3+3+4 system to work, a new curriculum should be introduced.

A curriculum change would lead to confusion and problems.

Having new textbooks is already troublesome; a  new curriculum with a  new focus would devastate the education system.

The 3+3+4 system  needs an all-or-nothing approach.  Without a new curriculum, it will not work.



What do you think about the 3+3+4 system?